Skip to main content

Full text of "A report to the Mayor from the Office of the District Attorney"

See other formats








Not to be taken from the Library 


3 1223 90186 3044 







NOV 1 4 1983 


p< ipi i/^ • inp APY 







19BU - 1983 






Introduction 1 

Transition To The Present Administration 6 

Violent Crimes Prosecution Policy 11 

Homicide Prosecution Section 13 
Sexual Assault-Child Abuse Prosecution Section 21 

Career criminal Prosecution Program 31 

Juvenile Court Section 36 

A. Disposition Problems 38 

B. stay-in-School Program 40 

C. Juvenile Court Statistics 41 
General Felony Prosecution Section 42 
Superior Court Statistics 48 
Special Prosecution Section 52 
Consumer Fraud Section 62 

A. Investigation and Litigation 63 

B. Complaint Mediation 6b 

C. Outreach and Education Activities 66 
Grand Jury 69 
Arson 72 
Misdemeanor Trial Section 75 
Bureau of Investigation 78 
Vtelrare Fraud Investigation 81 

Psychiatric Court 83 

Victim-Witness Assistant Program 88 

Family Violence Program 91 

Integrated Police-Prosecution Project 94 

Community United Against Violence 98 

family Support Bureau 99 

Concluding Remarks by Arlo Smitn 106 



The District Attorney is charged with the 
responsibility of prosecuting public offenses committed within 
the City and County of San Francisco. The California State 
Constitution provides for the establishment of an office of the 
District Attorney for each county of the State and this 
constitutional mandate is further implemented by California 
Government Code Section 265UU which makes the District Attorney 
the public prosecutor. 

The auties ana responsibilities of the District 
Attorney are not limited to the presentation of evidence in the 
trial of a person charged with a crime. The prosecution of a 
criminal case includes criminal investigation, grand jury 
inquiries, conferring on legislation and drafting new 
legislation, advising law enforcement officers and involvement 
in other criminal proceedings such as search warrants, 
arraignments, preliminary hearings, pretrial motions 
(demurrers, motions to suppress, etc.) pretrial conferences, 
sentencing recommendations, and motions to revoke grants of 


probation. Additionally, the District Attorney has duties in 
mental health commitments, consumer protection, family support 
(collection of civil judgments ordering an absent spouse to pay 
support for his children/family), juvenile prosecutions, and 
election and campaign law enforcement. The District Attorney's 
Office also counsels and assists victims of crime under the 
auspices of the Victim Witness Assistance Program. 

In performiny these functions, the District Attorney 
functions as both a county and state officer simultaneously. 
He is at once the chief law officer of the county and the 
public prosecutor. This local prosecutional role does not 
extend to enforcement of federal law. Local Federal law 
enforcement is generally supervised by the United States 
Attorney, who represents the United States in both civil and 
criminal cases. 

The San Francisco District Attorney and City Attorney 
perform distinctly different functions. The city Attorney 
represents the City in civil actions and advises city boards 
ana agencies. The San Francisco city Attorney does not 
prosecute criminal cases. 

During the 1940' s and early 1950' s the position of 
Assistant District Attorney was a part time position filled by 
attorneys in private practice. The office was maintained in a 
separate building on Montgomery Street. The tremendous 
increase in crime in San Francisco during the last 40 years 


coupled with increasiny procedural complexity of the criminal 
ldw dramatically changed the staffiny requirements of the 
District Attorney's Office and brouyht about the need for a 
start of full-time career prosecutors. The office moved to its 
present location at 88U Bryant Street in 1961, consolidatiny 
the office into the same buildiny as the courts. In 1962, the 
staff consisted of 25 attorneys and one investiyator . The 2b 
attorneys or 1962 yrew to 44 attorneys by 1971. The "luxury" 
of haviny an individual office yave way to doubliny and 
tripliny of attorneys per office. By 1975, the District 
Attorney's Office employed 57 attorneys and a staff of 19 
investiyators and situated them in the same space allotted to 
25 attorneys in 1962. Today, the District Attorney's Office 
employs 89 attorneys and 1U4 investiyators in two locations. 
Of this number there are 85 attorneys, 43 investiyators, and 
support staff at 880 Bryant Street, and they share the space 
desiyned for the much smaller staff of 1962. Bach day our 
attorneys appear in approximately twenty five different 
courtrooms to represent the People of the State of California. 

In 1981 and 1982 the resources provided by our city to 
prosecute criminal cases was insufficient to deal with an 
expandiny caseload. The felony arrest rate yrew steadily, and 
increased 15% in 1980 and 14% in 1981. These cases were 
presented to a court system desiyned years ayo to handle far 
fewer cases. 

The Police Department entered this decade with a new 


Chiet who improved morale. The Mayor and Board of Supervisors 
expanded the Police Department to full strength and the 
increased police activity is giviny us a safer city. The 
increased police patrols produced more arrests and this gave 
rise not only to more court cases but to a need for more legal 
assistance from the District Attorney to the Police 
Department. The highest priority was given to combatting 
violent crime, and a policy of no plea-bargaining in serious 
violent crime was carried out. At the same time, a commitment 
was made to pursue and present all prosecutable serious cases, 
and to meet our responsibility to render service to all 
agencies in the criminal justice system. This policy has been 
successful and is evidenced by a dramatic increase in the 
number of criminals sent to State Prison. 




1977 - 1982 















































































The administration of Arlo smith began January of 
19bU. In order to achieve the goals endorsed by the voters of 
San Francisco, a transition committee was appointed to advise 
the District Attorney on the best methods of allocating the 
resources of the office. The transition committee recognized 
that Proposition 13 (adopted by the voters in 1978 and which 
restricted local taxation) would present difficulties in 
obtaining additional staff. however, the committee expected at 
least the same numoer of prosecuting attorneys would remain in 
the office, and that parity with other agencies in the criminal 
justice system would oe maintained. 

The committee conducted a study of the District 
Attorney's Office ana made recommendations concerning operation 
or the office. Implementation of some of the committee's 
suggestions was exclusively within the power of the District 
Attorney, however, some recommenaations were based on the 
committee's assumption that the size of the staff would remain 
tne same. Other recommendations depended upon changes in 
policy by other agencies. The demise of LEAA eliminated the 
hope of seeking federal funds to establish innovative programs 
to solve old problems with new ideas. Nevertheless, almost all 
or the recommendations of my transition committee have oeen 
carried out. 

Opinions continued to flow from California's appellate 

courts, and these decisions increased the rights of 


the criminal, and at the same time diminished the rights of the 
victim. These court rulings left the community with a more 
complex criminal justice system that made the prosecution of 
criminal cases more costly and time consuminy. As a 
consequence of these burdens, rather than accommodating more 
cases, the system could handle fewer cases. 

In the spriny of 198U, the District Attorney was 
advised by the Mayor's office that due to over-spendiny by the 
prior administration, the prosecution staff had to be reduced 
by ten percent. Therefore, decisions reyardiny placement of 
staff were made based upon immediate needs rather than upon 
lony-ranye yoals. Vertical prosecution of routine felony cases 
had to be discontinued, and two yeneral litiyation sections of 
experienced trial attorneys were established to handle routine 
Superior Court litiyation. 

In this reyard the Economic Crime Unit (Consumer Fraud 
Section) was directed to concentrate exclusively on consumer 
fraud cases. Non-consumer felony economic crime cases were 
transferred to the General Litiyation Section. An intake unit 
staffed with experienced senior trial attorneys was established 
to review no warrant felony arrests and requests for felony 
warrants in those cases assigned to General Litigation. The 
Narcotics-Vice section continued to screen its cases and 
thereafter handle the Superior Court litigation. A preliminary 
hearing section was established to present felony preliminary 
hearings in general litigation and narcotics cases. The most 


dirticult or serious or these cases continued to be vertically 
prosecuted. Homicide, Sexual Assault, Career Criminal, and 
special Prosecution cases are also handled vertically. 

The Municipal Court Misdemeanor Trial Section has also 
oeen re-organized. An intake screening system has been 
established. The increased time between arrest and arraignment 
permitted by the use of citations is being utilized to provide 
advance screening, more thorough investigation, and an even 
distribution or the secretarial services. The Police 
Department is working on providing a charging package seven 
days in advance of arraignment to facilitate the above program. 

The remainder of the misdemeanor trial staff is 
assigned to Municipal Court Trial Departments. Two attorneys 
handle the law and motion matters full time and maintain an 
office brier bank. The remainder are assigned to trial 
courts. Weekly training sessions are conducted to assist in 
the continuing development of my staff's legal skills. 

The placement of staff by a District Attorney is 
controlled by the manner in which the courts are structured. 
The superior Court assigns cases from a master calendar 
department which permits flexibility in assignment of staff. 
However, the Municipal Court has elected to operate without a 
master calendar in its criminal division, and therefore 
attorneys must be assigned to each court on a full-time basis. 
The Municipal Court Judges together with members of a Bar 
Association committee are studying the question of master 


calendar procedures. Thus, some of the recommendations of the 
transition committee await the final decision by the Court in 
this matter. 

The problem of obtaininy the presence of necessary 
witnesses continues to be of serious concern and is exacerbated 
by the expanding case load. The California Penal Code places 
the responsibility for serviny subpoenas on the Police 
Departments and sheriffs of our state. The San Francisco 
Police Department, which serves most of the subpoenas issued by 
my office, is in the process of reviewing its system 
established years ayo and is desiyniny a new one to meet the 
current needs of our city. Members of the District Attorney's 
staff are workiny in cooperation with the Police Department in 
order to reach a quick and satisfactory solution to this 

In lyiti a semi-public law library was established at 
the Hall of Justice. The previous administration permitted all 
of the law books in the District Attorney's law library to be 
transferred to the buildiny library in order to facilitate its 
establishment. The office library was converted into a record 
room and the staff was left with no private library or easy 
access to law books during the eveniny or weekends. The 
transition committee commented on the District Attorney's loss 
or privacy, confidentiality, security, and access caused by the 
new library, and recoynized the injustice which resulted from 
the fact that other ayencies shariny access to the library did 


not give uy their law books in order to establish the building 
library. A satellite law library has since been established 
within the District Attorney's Office which provides very 
limited research materials for the staff to use during the 
evening and weekends. Funds are now being sought to expand the 
legal research resources for the attorneys. 




The public often perceives the criminal justice system 
as a complex world designed to be understood only by those who 
work within its realm. It" the criminal justice system fails to 
meet generally accepted expectations of what constitutes 
justice/ negative public attitudes may be converted into a 
deep-seated lack of faith in our system. Some examples of 
short-cominys of the criminal justice system are: Resolution 
ot cases on procedural rules rather than on the merits; 
judicial recognition of unreasonable psychiatric defenses; lony 
and unreasonable delay in brinyiny cases to trial; exclusion of 
relevant evidence; short prison terms under the new sentence 
laws and plea baryaininy. 

Most people recoynize that the California court system 
is limited in size and that it will function properly only if a 
yiven number of cases are brouyht to trial. The important 
issues, therefore, are what cases will be tried before a court 
or jury, and how will the available prosecution resources best 
be used to protect the public* 

There will be no plea baryaininy in cases involviny a 
serious violent crime. In cases of serious violent crime the 
District Attorney seeks a conviction on the most serious charye 
supported by the available evidence. A plea of guilty will not 
be accepted to a lesser charye unless newly discovered evidence 


justifyiny such a course is presented. 

The effect of this policy can be seen in the rise in 
sentences to state prison. Statistics released by the 
California Department of Corrections regardiny new commitments 
show remarkable increases. The commitments to State Prison 
from San Francisco in 1981 rose 50% over 1979 and 37% over 
1980. In fiscal year 1981-19&2 commitments to State Prison 
increased 65% over 1979. The commitments for first deyree 
murder increased 60% in 1981, and 45% in 1980. The increase 
was 100% in fiscal year 1981-1982. Homicide commitments, 
generally, increased 100% in 1980, and in fiscal year 1981-1982 
the increase was 216%. Increases in rape, robbery, and assault 
commitments have also occurred. 



Homicide is the most serious crime. The precious gift 
of life has been lost tor all time, and loved ones continue to 
suffer year after year. No crime is taken more seriously by 
the prosecutor, nor is any case prepared and prosecuted with 
yreater care than nomicide. 

Five experienced and able lawyers are assigned to 
prosecute homicide cases exclusively. Uther able members of 
staff are assigned to homicide trials when the caseload 
requires additional attorneys. The assistant in charge of this 
section is Eugene Sweeters. 

The Homicide Prosecution Section follows each case 

from initial investigation through trial and sentencing. The 

Assistant District Attorney initially assigned to a homicide 

prosecution personally follows the case to its conclusion. The 

gravity and complexity of these cases usually causes numerous 

pre-trial motions to be filed by defendants. Such motions and 

resulting court hearings place greater demands on attorney time 

both in preparing the written response and litigating issues 

presented in court. Each homicide requires an exhaustive and 

painstaking investigation. The trial of the case is usually 

longer than other felonies and contains a wider range of 

issues. Furthermore, the need for attorney services seldom 

ends at the time sentence is pronounced. Defendants found 

insane may request a jury trial each year to litigate whether 

ttieir sanity has been restored. Defendants committed to prison 


for indeterminate lire terms (first and second Degree Murder) 
are entitled to annual hearinys before the Board of Prison 
Terms when tney become eliyible for parole. 

During the calendar year 1980, 67 homicide cases were 
prosecuted to conclusion by the Homicide Section. Duriny 1981 
the number of cases rose to 92, an increase of 45% over the 
previous year. 

The followiny payes contain summaries of examples of 
the cases prosecuted duriny the past three years. They 
demonstrate the wide variety and sometimes very unusual fact 
situations that occur in cases handled by the homicide Section. 

People v. Tom Yu 

Defendant was the mastermind of the Golden Drayon 
Massacre, which occurred on September 4, 1977 in the Golden 
Drayon Restaurant in Chinatown. Members of the Joe Boys Gany 
burst into the restaurant and opened fire with two shotyuns and 
a semi-automatic rifle and a pistol. five people were killed 
and 11 others wounded. Torn Yu was some fifteen miles away at 
the time, in Pacifica, in the house from which the massacre was 
launched. He received and relayed a phone call from an 
associate who went into the restaurant and saw that members of 
two yanys who were enemies of the Joe Boys were present in 
numbers. Yu then directed the three shooters to yo to the 
restaurant and kill as many of the enemy yany members as they 
could. All of the victims were innocent bystanders. 


Yu was charyed with and convicted of five counts of 
first-deyree murder, 11 counts of assault, 1 count of 
conspiracy to murder and 1 count of conspiracy to assault with 
armed alleyations. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. 

People v. Dennis Alsin (Keyyie Veyyiej and Jay Mesbitt 
The defendants were charyed with murder, robbery and 
burylary in connection with the killiny of Claude Duyas in the 
Broadway Hotel. The killiny occurred in full view of several 
"punk rock" friends of the defendants, some of whom testified 
at the trial. Alsin stabbed the deceased 8 times in the chest 
and abdomen while Nesbitt was kickiny the victim in the head. 
Alsin contended that the killiny was in self-defense. 

The defendants each were convicted of second-deyree 
murders, and Alsin received a sentence of 16-to-life while 
Nesbitt was sentenced to lb-to-life in State Prison. 

People v. Gavin Shine 

Defendant Shine was a swatstika-weariny leader of a 
white power yroup known as the Crocker Park Boys. He attacked 
a lb year old Mission Hiyh School student, Nelson Rodriyuez, in 
the parkiny lot on top of Twin Peaks and beat the youth to 
death. The motive for the attack was hatred of Latino males. 
Shine was found yuilty of second deyree murder and sentenced to 
prison for lb years to life. 


People v. William Cunningham 

Defendant and Stephen Spunar had a long standing 
dispute. Witnesses indicated that Cunningham previously had 
hung Steven Spunar in effigy. The evidence established that 
the defendant attempted to burn the auto of Spunar with a 
firebomb. When the victim responded to view the scene he was 
shot and killed. Cunningham was found guilty of first degree 
murder and arson of the auto. His sentence is 27 years to life 
in state Prison. 

People v. Melvin Jones 

Defendant entered the Donut World coffee shop, 
withdrew a pistol, and shot the owner Mr. Anthony Silva. He 
demanded the receipts from the counterperson and fled after 
obtaining cash from the register. He was found guilty of first 
degree murder, and other felonies. He was sentenced to 27 
years to life in state Prison. 

People v. Michael Kamkeesoon 

Defendant was a house guest of the victim Robert 
Mullins. Kamkeesoon struck Mullins on the head with a blunt 
instrument and stabbed him 2b times. The motive was robbery. 
He was convicted of first degree murder and robbery. 
Kamkeesoon is currently serving 26 years to life in State 


People v. bobby Birden 

Defendant Birden shot and killed former Forty-Niner 
football player Bruce Rhodes and wounded his wife, Iris Rhodes, 
in an incident on ^uesada Street. The motive was theft of 
property from the person of Mr. Rhodes. The defendant was 
convicted of first degree murder, attempted murder, and 
robbery. He was sentenced to 34 years to life in prison. 

People v. Russell Coleman 

The defendant brutally raped and killed a young high 
school student. He was convicted of first degree murder and 
sentenced to death. The case was solved by identification of a 
fingerprint at the scene. This case is also discussed in the 
section on sex crimes. 

People v. Parrel King 

Darrel King was a major narcotics dealer in San 
Francisco. He shot and killed Ronald Butler in an alley near 
Hayes and Gough streets and fled in an auto. The motive for 
the murder was King's belief that Butler had stolen money and 
narcotics from one of his runners. He was convicted of first 
degree murder and sentenced to 29 years to life in Prison. 


People v. Steven Thompson 

Thompson was an associate of a Chinatown youth gang. 
Members of the yroup planned a residential robbery in the 
Sunset District. While enroute to carry out the plan, Thompson 
became involved in a traffic dispute with Sean Donneley and 
Charles McKelvie. The defendant believed the two youths were 
undercover police officers and shot them. Dopnneley was 
killed, McKelvie survived. Thompson was convicted of first 
deyree murder and attempted murder. He is serving 38 years to 
life in State Prison. 

People v. hendrix 

Defendant broke into the decedent's home via the 
bathroom window. Once inside, he broke open the bedroom door 
and shot the decedent in the head with a small caliber pistol. 
Decedent, mortally wounded, ran out of the bedroom, collapsed 
on the hallway floor, whereupon the defendant pumped several 
more shots into the decedent's body while he was on the floor. 
Thereafter, defendant stole decedent's personal property. 
Decedent's roommate at this time came home, was threatened with 
his life and chased down the block by defendant, who thereafter 
fled. Approximately a week later, this same defendant 
responded to the second victim's apartment and shot that victim 
at point blank range in the back of the head several times with 
a small caliber pistol. The defendant stated he did not like 
homosexuals, that he was simply trying to collect money owed 


him, and had to shoot in self-defense. He was convicted of two 
counts of murder in the first degree. At the death penalty 
phase of the trial, the People introduced evidence of three 
similar killings by the defendant — two in Los Angeles, one in 
Alameda County. The jury imposed the death penalty upon the 
defendant. The Court, in sentencing the defendant, commented 
that he acted like a predator. 

People v. Wilson 

The defendant deliberately immersed her infant child 
into a bathtub full of hot water, causing the child's death by 
shock and suffocation due to drowning. The defendant then left 
her apartment, locked it and spent some time in a motel with a 
male acquaintance. The medical expert testified that the baby 
child haa been in the tub approximately 8 hours and could not 
have accidentally fallen into the tub. He concluded that the 
child was deliberately immersed. The defendant was convicted 
or muraer and following a separate trial, was found to be sane 
at the commission of the crime. The penalty for this offense 
carries a term of 15 years to life in State Prison. 

People v. Beasley 

The defendant broke into his common-law wife's 
apartment and lie in wait for her and her gentleman friend to 
return from a social engagement. Upon their return, he 
confronted them and shot her gentleman friend dead with a 


pistol. Thereafter, he yrabbed her by the head, deliberately 
put the barrel of the pistol into her mouth and shot a portion 
of tier cheek and jaw away for the purpose of horribly 
disfiyuriny her. The victim fled in terror and shock. She ran 
to the front door of the next door neiyhbor to seek help and 
was in the process of knockiny on the neiyhbor' s door when the 
defendant deliberately shot her in the back. Fortunately she 
survived her wounds and later testified ayainst the defendant. 
The defendant was convicted of murder in the first deyree and 
yiven a term of 27 years to life. 

People v. Willis 

The defendant "set up" a person who was believed to be 
a druy dealer and "evil" because he charyed too much money for 
his druys. Defendant, knowiny the victim would not open his 
door to stranyers, enlisted the aid of a known friend of the 
victim who called the victim to the door. Whereupon openiny 
the door, the defendant and his accomplices attacked the victim 
and cut his throat with a knife. They took money and druys. 
The defendant and his accomplices fled the scene. They were 
cauyht later that niyht at a friend's house where they were 
observed aryuiny over who would yet what share of their 
ili-yotten yain. Willis was convicted of murder in the first 
deyree and sentenced to 26 years to life in prison. 



The Sexual Assault/Child Abuse Prosecution Section of 
the District Attorney's Office is responsible for the 
prosecution of felony assaults ot a sexual nature and for the 
prosecution of all crimes committed ayainst children including 
sexual and physical abuse and child stealing. One of the 
section's attorneys is assigned to each case prosecuted and 
unless an unavoidable conflict occurs, the attorney continues 
with that case until final disposition. The assigned attorney 
handles all motions, hearings and trials for the particular 
case. This procedure is designed to minimize the emotional 
trauma experienced by the victim during the prosecution of the 
case and to insure intense and thorough case preparation and 
presentation. The victim knows the Section attorney handling 
the case and she is encouraged to call the attorney whenever 
necessary. The victim need not report the facts of the case to / 
a different attorney each time he or she comes to court and the 
victim is reassured to know that someone in the criminal 
justice system has intimate knowledge of her case and is 
carefully monitoring it. The Assistant in Charge of this 
section is Judith Whitmer. 

Vertical representation by one assistant district 
attorney as described above also allows closer collaboration 
between various agencies serving the victim and law 
enforcement. Team members routinely discuss cases with the 


staff of the Department of Public Health's Sexual Trauma Unit 
(adult victims) and the Child/Adolescent Sexual Abuse Resource 
Center (Juvenile victims) as well as the Department of Social 
Services. Team members also participate in the traininy of the 
staff of such related agencies. 

Currently, members of the team hold positions on the 
Child Sexual Trauma Advisory Committee to the Mayor, the Child 
Abuse Counsel, and the R.A.P.E., sub-committee of the 
Commission on the Status of Women. 

Duriny 1980 the team consisted of three attorneys, 
includiny the team leader. In 19bl, the team was expanded, by 
one, to four attorneys. This expansion has permitted the team 
to enlarye its duties to include representation of minors in 
juvenile court dependancy proceedinys who have been abused 
criminally or neylected by their parents (Section 351 Welfare & 
Institutions Code). The District Attorney's Office is thus in 
the unique position of beiny able to provide the juvenile court 
with information reyardiny the proyress of cases in criminal 
court and vice versa which facilitates the coordinated handliny 
of each matter. 

Further, representation of the minor by the Section in 
juvenile court dependancy actions can encourage early 
disposition in related criminal matters where adequate controls 
over the family are imposed by the juvenile court. Also, 
criminal convictions for child abuse are admissible in juvenile 
dependency cases; such convictions can yreatly shorten juvenile 


court proceeding. Therefore, while this new role increases the 
work load of the team, this effort ultimately should result in 
some cost reduction to the city by eliminating unnecessary and 
duplicative litigation in the criminal and juvenile courts. 

Since August of 1981, when the District Attorney's 
Office was first appointed to serve in this capacity, the 
Section has represented forty-one minors at dependency 
hearings. The welfare and Institutions Code provides that 
counsel for the minor "shall be charged in general with the 
representation of the child's interest." (Section 318 Welfare 
& institution) . Pursuant to that mandate, the District 
Attorney's office has moved successfully to intervene in 
paternity actions in which the child is an interested party and 
to appoint a guardian ad litem . 

The 198U/81 section tried fifty-five jury trials. In 
several of these cases the defendant had committed prior sexual 
assaults on other victims which crimes were similar in nature 
to the charged offense. Thirteen of these prior victims (and 
in one case a subsequent victim) were contacted and agreed to 
testify against the defendant. One came from as far away as 
Vermont. Requests to the court to admit said similar conduct 
were granted in eight cases and in each case the defendant was 
convicted. In those fifty-five jury trials in fiscal year 
1980-1981 there were only two not guilty verdicts. In 1982 the 
Sexual Assault-Child Abuse Section tried thirty four jury 


trials with only two not yuilty verdicts. This represents a 
94% jury trial conviction rate. 

Sexual assault prosecutions often include presentation 
of important evidence obtained by serioloyical examinations. 
Seroioyy is the science of analyziny blood and other body 
secretions for yenetic markers which can then be used to 
identify the donor of said secretions. Such evidence, when 
obtainable, is vital to identifyiny the suspect in court. In 
19BU and 19bl, the District Attorney's Office requested 
serioloyical examinations from private laboratories in 
twenty-eiyht cases. Sixteen of those cases were sexual assault 
cases, eleven were homicides and one was a vice case. Total 
expenditure for serioloyical testiny and testimony was 

The San t'rancisco Police Department Crime Laboratory 
currently performs serioloyical analysis of blood samples for 
certain characteristics but does not have the capability to 
fully examine seman and saliva specimens. The majority of the 
crime lao's serioloyical work is done for physical assaults 
(non-sexual) and homicide cases. While the Police Department 
criminialists anticipate increasiny their serioloyical 
capabilities, it will still be necessary for the sexual assault 
team to consult private laboratories reyardiny seman analysis. 

Private laboratories can identify a much wider ranye 
of yenetic markers. such evidence is as important to 
convictiny the yuilty suspect as it is to freeiny the 


innocent. In fact in 1980 and 19bl, three men who were 
initially charged in separate cases were later exonerated 
through lengthy and intensive seriological examinations sought 
and paid for by the District Attorney's Office. 

The following summaries illustrate the variety of 
cases prosecuted by the Sexual Assault Prosecution Section. 


Seventeen year old Ronnie Reese committed a series of 
sexual attacks on a young woman. Reese was charged with 
burglary, rape, assault, robbery and rape with various foreign 
objects which included a tabasco sauce bottle, a turkey baster 
and a rolling pin. 

Reese, a juvenile, was certified for trial as an 
adult. Reese pled guilty to all counts and was sentenced to 
state prison for twenty years. 


The four defendants who participated in a vicious 
attack on the residents at the Keys Rest home were convicted 
and sentenced to state prison for terms ranging from seventeen 
years to fifty-four years. 



Franklin was charyed with sexually assaultiny a 4u 
year old intoxicated woman whom he had escorted from a bar. 
The victim could not recall the details or location of the 
incident. Franklin had been convicted previously of sexual 
assaults. The victims of those prior assaults were located in 
Oregan and Vermont and flown in to testify at trial. Franklin 
was convicted and sentenced to eleven years in state prison. 


The defendant lured three teenaye boys to his 
apartment on separate occasions by offering them drugs. Once 
the victims were under the influence of druys, he forced them 
to pose for photographic pictures and to commit sexual acts. 
The defendant was convicted of 17 counts and sentenced to 
sixteen years in prison. 


McKenzie broke into an apartment on Fulton Street in 
the early morniny hours. He stabbed a male resident of the 
apartment twice, causiny very serious injury. After the 
stabbiny/ he robbed, raped and forced an act of oral copulation 


upon the female resident of tne apartment. McKenzie feigned 
mental incompetence in order to avoid standing trial, and he 
had to be found competent by a jury to be brought to trial. 
After being found competent he was convicted thereafter by a 
second jury of the crimes with which he was charged and 
sentenced to seventeen years in prison. 


The defendant in this case picked his four year old 
daughter up by the neck in an attempt to punish her. He broke 
one of her neck bones. She was hospitalized for four months. 
She refused to tell the jury how her neck was hurt. Williams 
was convicted of child abuse and aggravated assault. He was 
sentenced to five years in prison. 


This case involved the rape and assault of a Swedish 
citizen on vacation in San Francisco. The victim met Sims and 
spent the day with him. 

While driving through Golden Gate Park, Sims stopped 

his car to talk to some friends. The victim remembered some of 

these people trying to pull her out of the car. The next thing 

she remembered is the defendant raping her. The lapse of 


memory was trom three to five hours. 

The preliminary heariny was videotaped because the 
victim was returniny to Sweden. The videotape was played for 
the jury duriny the trial. This was only the third time that 
this procedure had been used in San Francisco. A psychiatrist 
who viewed the videotape explained the possible causes of the 
victim's memory lapse. 

The defendant was convicted of all four counts. He 
was sentenced to six years in prison. 


The defendant was convicted of takiny his two year old 
son to the defendant's native country/ Lebanon/ in violation of 
a court order which yranted custody to his estranyed wife. 
When the defendant returned without his son to the United 
States in order to renew his yreen card, he was arrested, tried 
and found yuilty. He was sentenced to four years in state 
prison. Tne child is still in Lebanon. 


James Gitchuway and Rebecca Miller had been liviny 
toyether for aoout eiyht years. Rebecca Miller's dauyhter also 


lived with them. From the time that the daughter turned 12 
years old until just before her 15th birthday, the defendants 
engaged in multiple sexual encounters with the victim. The sex 
acts included sexual intercourse and oral copulation with both 
defendants. The defendants adamantly denied their guilt, and 
there was no physical evidence to corroborate the charges, but 
the jury strongly believed the young victim's testimony in 
court. The jury convicted each defendant of 11 counts of 
sexual assault and recommended state prison for each defendant. 


Four juvenile males kidnapped, robbed, sexually 
assaulted a young woman student from Golden Gate University. 
Then two of them shot her and ran her down with a car, leaving 
her for dead. The four were certified for trial as adults and 
convicted by jury verdict. They received sentences ranging 
from seventy-two years plus life imprisonment to twenty-four 
years plus life. 



The defendant molested an 11 year old girl and 
sexually assaulted a 14 year old girl in separate incidents. 
When he was arrested for these crimes, his fingerprints were 
matched to those left at the scene of an earlier unsolved 
rape/murder. The defendant was tried and convicted on the two 
sexual assaults on the young girls. The homicide was severed 
from the sexual assault trial by the California Supreme Court. 
The same member of the Sexual Assault Prosecution Section tried 
the homicide. The defendant was convicted by jury and 
sentenced to death in the murder charge. 



The career Criminal Prosecution Program hereinafter 
"CCP" is an intensive prosecutorial program premised on the 
proven tact that a small group of criminals are responsible for 
an inordinately large amount of crime. Because these offenders 
have either successfully eluded prosecution in the past or have 
been repeat failures of the criminal justice system's efforts 
toward rehabilitation, these criminals continue to victimize 
the public. The theory behind the program is that if 
specialized, intensive prosecutorial efforts are directed 
toward tiie career criminal, there will be consequently a 
yreater number of state prison commitments and longer periods 
of incarceration, and therefore greater protection of the 
public from the repeat offender. 

Unfortunately, some public prosecutors may be 
Dverwhelmed by unmanageable caseloads, with no readily 
available resources to establish and maintain a priority 
prosecution program. Consequently, many career criminals have 
repeatedly and successfully passed through the criminal justice 
system with little, if any, deterring effect on their criminal 

The Career Criminal Program is a new approach to 
prosecution practices; namely priority prosecution of the 
repeat offender. The ultimate goal of the program is to 
.dentify, to vigorously prosecute and to commit to state prison 


those individuals who maintain their lives by committing 
felonies. The San Francisco career Criminal Prosecution 
Program has pursued actively the philosophy embodied in the 
California Career Criminal Legislation, and the office has 
incorporated into its local program all the goals and 
objectives of that legislation. 


In order to attain these objectives, these objectives, 
the Career Criminal Team, under the leadership of Project 
Director and Assistant in Charge, Albert Murray, seeks to 
achieve the following goals: 

A: Impact Goals 

1. To increase the number of recidivist robbers 
and burglars committed to state prison. 

2. To increase the severity of sentences for 
Career Criminals. 

B: Performance Goals 

1. To significantly decrease plea-bargaining in 
the most serious offenses charged in Career Criminal cases. 

2. To effect an increase in the number of 
enhancements alleged and found to be true on Career Criminal 

3. To maintain a lower case volume for Career 
Criminal attorneys as compared to other felony teams in the 
District Attorney's Office. 


4. To increase the amount of bail on Career Criminal 
cases as compared to similar cases prosecuted by the District 
Attorney's office. 

The entire CCP staff directs its efforts to the 
successful prosecution of the career criminal. At any one 
time, each Career Criminal prosecutor may be responsible for a 
caseload ranging between 8 and lb serious trials, many of which 
cases have multiple defendants. Since its inception, the rate 
of conviction in career criminal prosecutions have been 
consistently higher than that for similarly charged non-career 
criminal prosecutions. Likewise, commitments to state prison 
are increased, and the length of terms imposed are generally 

This success is due, in part, to adherence to the 
guidelines mandated by the career Criminal Statute. Each 
career criminal deputy operates with a caseload that is 
generally less than half that of the general office staff. 
This permits that deputy to become more intimately familiar 
with each case and allows the attorney to participate directly 
in the prosecution from its very inception through its ultimate 
disposition — the so-called vertical prosecution philosophy. 
Relationhip with victims is enhanced in that they invariably 
Despite a reduction in staff in 198U due to budget limitations, 
the section has substantially increased the conviction rate at 
trial over the previous administration — from 68% in 1979 to 
87% in 198U, 93% in 1981, and 89% in 1982. The section also 


has increased the yearly total number of cases processed from 
123 cases in 1979 to 132 cases in 1982. 




















FY 79/8U FY 80/81 FY 81/82 

Defendants accepted 
Active cases at end of year 
Cases closed duriny year 
Defendants Dismissed 

a. Victim unvailable 

b. Alibi verified 

c. Lack of positive 

identification 2 

d. 1538.5 (evidence 

suppression) 1 

e. By the court 5 8 8 

f. Defendant in State 
Prison on other 

conviction 3 2 

Convictions 156 149 148 

a. Pleas of guilty 109 125 134 

b. Jury trial 44 21 23 

c. Probation revocations 3 3 1 

State Prison Commitments 114 105 113 

County Jail Commitments 26 19 20 

Prison Evaulations 

(1203.03 P.C. ) 2 3 2 

Calif orni 



The District Attorney assigns five attorneys to the 
Youth Guidance Center (YGC) to prosecute crimes committed by 
juveniles. The support staff consists of two investigators, 
one secretary and one clerk/secretary. The section is 
supervised by Nancy Stretch. Each attorney, with the exception 
of the supervising attorney, is assigned to a court presided 
over by either a judge or a Juvenile court Referee. 

In every instance when a minor is referred to the 
Probation Department for a criminal violation, felony or 
misdemeanor, a probation officer conducts an investigation to 
determine whether a petition (a criminal charging instrument) 
should be requested of the District Attorney. When such a 
request is made, the District Attorney will then determine 
whether criminal charges are appropriate. If a minor is 
currently a ward of the court (on probation), a supplemental 
petition (Motion to Revoke Probation) is filed normally along 
with the new petition to determine whether or not a new 
placement for the minor is in order. 

Dispositions (sentences of the court) range from 
probation to a commitment to the California Youth Authority. A 
variety of sentencing alternatives between those parameters are 
available including placing the minor back in the home under a 
probation officer's supervision, placing the minor with a 


relative, placing the minor in a live-in treatment facility and 
referring the minor to Log Cabin Ranch School. short periods 
or "rehabilitative" detention at YGC, post-disposition, may 
also be ordered. 

Once assigned to a case, the attorney is responsible 
for all facets of the case. These include the following: 
contacting and interviewing witnesses, identifying witnesses to 
be subpoenaed, requesting necessary investigation, responding 
to pretrial motions (motions to sever, demurrers, motions to 
suppress evidence, etc.,) conducting evidenciary hearings on 
pretrial motions, presenting evidence at the jurisdictional 
hearings, and presenting evidence at the disposition hearing. 

The San Francisco District Attorney's Office has two 
full time investigators assigned to YGC. These two individuals 
perform all the normal investigative services necessary to 
criminal prosecutions, including: locating witnesses, taking 
statements, conducting photographic lineups, photographing 
crime scenes, transporting witnesses and regularly serving 
subpoenas. Because YGC is separated physically from the Hall 
of justice, there are many logistical problems involved in 
effective investigation and processing of cases. The 
logistical problems, coupled with the reduced time limits 
within which a juvenile case must be adjudicated, (15 court 
days from detention to trial) make efficient and effective 
investigation a burdensome task. 



The dispositional alternatives available to 
rehabilitate minors cominy with Section 6U2 of the Welfare and 
Institutions Code include removing the minor from the home and 
placing him or her in a secure or semi-secure facility such as 
the Caliiornia Youth Authority, Log Cabin Ranch School (males 
only), Contra Costa Girls Center (female equivalent of LCRS) or 
the cottages at the YGC. Log Cabin has space for approximately 
7U boys, however, Contra costa county will only accept 3 girls 
from San Francisco at the Girls Center at any given time. 

Reversing this situation is impeded by fiscal 
problems. Hidden Valley Ranch school, a semi-secure facility 
for young boys, was closed several years ago in the wake of 
Proposition 13. Log Cabin Ranch School's population is 
increasingly comprised of older boys. San Francisco has no 
equivalent of LCRS for females, and instead as noted above can 
reserve only 3 beds at the Contra Costa Girls Center. The 
rising number of serious female juvenile offenders and the 
increase in violent or repeat young male offenders are the 
beneficiaries of a serious void in the sentencing alternatives 
available to the juvenile court. Assuming there are no beds 
available, a sentencing court, faced with a minor who is 
otherwise an appropriate candidate for the Girls center, (or as 
a young male would have been for Hidden Valley's program), must 
then choose between the severity of a youth authority 


commitment and sending tne minor home on probation. The latter 
is routinely the alternative chosen. 

The above described situation frustrates the purposes 
of the juvenile criminal justice system. Faced with 
dispositional recommendations by the Probation Department that 
a District Attorney feels are inappropriate, and realizing that 
the courts are not inclined to deviate from recommendations of 
the Probation Department in favor of a more severe of 
restrictive disposition, the disposition hearing then becomes 
an extended evidentiary hearing. Members of the District 
Attorney's staff often have to conduct additional 
investigation, prepare additional reports and examine witnesses 
at this hearing in order to contradict the recommended 
dispositions which are grounded upon the lack of custodial 
sentencing alternatives. 

When a minor is placed on probation there are usually 
conditions of probation imposed (i.e., community service, 
restitution, counseling, attorney's fees, etc.). These 
conditions are ignored by many probationers. If a minor is not 
complying with conditions of probation but has committed no new 
criminal offenses, he can be brought back before the court by 
the filing of a supplemental Petition. If such a petition is 
filed and found to be true, and court can change the placement 
of the minor in whatever manner it deems appropriate, including 
a commitment to CYA. If the petition is not admitted by the 
minor, however, an evidenciary hearing (trial) must be 


conducted wherein the allegations have to be proved beyond a 
reasonable doubt. 


The San Francisco Unified School District along with 
the police department implemented the Stay-in-School Program at 
the beginning of the 1^81 school year. The purpose of the 
program was to halt the chronic truancy problem existing in 
many public schools, students on probation who were determined 
by police to be absent from school grounds without good cause 
were cited to appear on a truancy calendar presided over by the 
juvenile court judge on Thursday and Friday afternoons. 
Reports were prepared by probation officers for each truant 
describing his/her attendance and performance at school. 

After approximately 5 months of this truancy 
prevention program, the number of citations for truancy greatly 
decreased. Furthermore, reports from police units regularly 
patrolling the areas of the high school reflect a drastic 
decrease in the numbers of students lingering in the 
neighborhoods. The success of this program which was achieved 
by meeting out swift punishment (including time in custody) is 
gratifying when compared to the lack of success achieved by the 
juvenile justice system in its traditional role. 



1980 1981 1982 

Petitions tiled 2076 2191 2241 

Dispositions : 

Youth Authority Commitments 

Loy Cabin Ranch school 

Contra Costa Girls' 
Center Commitments 

Out-of-home placement 

Home probation 

Probation with other relatives 

Probation without wardship 

Cases dismissed 

Remanded to adult court 

Released to immiyration 

Transferred to other 

Total Dispositions 

Trials conducted 










































Felonies are serious crimes which may be punished by a 
sentence to state prison. Each year an ever increasing number 
or persons are arrested for the commission of felonies. 
Resources provided to the District Attorney and courts to 
properly meet this cnallenge have not kept pace with the rise 
in volume of these arrests. New decisions dealing with 
procedural matters have contributed to the increased need for 
staff and facilities to accommodate the caseload. 

The ideal approach would be to vertically prosecute 
every felony case. That means that every felony would have a 
prosecutor assigned from the pre-filing review to the case 
termination. Witnesses and investigators would always deal 
with one attorney who was aware of all aspects of the case, and 
individually responsible for its outcome. Each month the staff 
must review and evaluate in excess of one thousand felony 
(arrests and numerous requests by law enforcement agencies for 
arrest and search warrants. The number of felony arrests in 

1981 was 14% higher than in 198U. The felony arrest rate for 

1982 was 11.67% higher than 198U. 
In the past the budget provided sufficient staff to 

permit vertical prosecution of most felony cases. However in 
the summer of 1981, the concept of vertical prosecution 
Jnderwent ciianyes which developed into the present General 


Litiyation Section of the District Attorney's Orfice. These 
:hanyes became necessary due to increasing demands on the 
courtroom time of individual lawyers which arose from a greater 
vorKload. On any yiven day an attorney could find himself 
:onsultiny with numerous Police Inspectors reyardiny the filiny 
5f new cases. At the same time he would be needed in one or 
nore courts for pre-trial conferences, preliminary hearinys, 
inu trials. As a result of these scheduiiny conflicts many 
;ases had to be reassiyned to a new attorney shortly before 
:hese court hearinys. Such transfers created confusion amony 
:he courts and witnesses, and altered the preparation level of 
:he attorneys. To correct this situation the office was 
reconstructed as described in the followiny parayraphs. 

Botn horizontal and vertical prosecution is now beiny 
itilized. Homicides, sexual Assaults, career criminal, Special 
'rosecution anu Consumer Fraud sections vertically prosecute 
ill felony cases assiyned to them. The Narcotics-Vice section 
:iles its own cases, prosecutes the most serious cases at the 
>reliminary heariny, and handles the litiyation of all 
:<arcotics/vice Crimes in the superior Court. 

Felony cases that are not assiyned to tiie vertical 
>rosecution units described in the above parayraph are assiyned 
:o the General Litiyation section. This procedure functions in 
.hree stayes and the cases are processed throuyh three units 
vhich are desiyned to provide intense and thorouyh handliny of 


routine felony cases. These units are the Felony Intake, 
Felony Preliminary tteariny, and General Litiyation sections. 

In 1980 there was no General Litiyation section in the 
District Attorney's Office, because fiscal realities allowed 
for more specialization than has been possible in recent 
times. Prior to March 1980, this office was able to assiyn a 
head attorney and ten to twelve lawyers to handle all cases 
yenerated by the Robbery and General Work Details of tne Police 
Department. Each of these attorneys was then able to monitor 
individual cases from the day of arrest to the day of 
conviction concentratiny on assaults, robberies, and 
kidnappinys. Other sections of the office were able to yive 
similar attention to other types of crime, such as burylary and 
auto theft. An individual attorney was able to prosecute a 
sinyle felony case in a direct vertical line from arrest, to 
preliminary heariny, to trial ana sentenciny. The advantayes 
of this procedure are self-evident. The establishment of the 
General Litiyation prosecutiny section permits the District 
Attorney to use the vertical system for the most serious or 
difticuit cases, yet allows for the remainder of the felony 
cases to be properly prosecuted despite a shortaye of trial 

The Felony IntaKe section was established in 1981. 
Four attorneys with extensive felony trial experience have been 
assigned to review felony arrest and warrant requests in cases 
that are not vertically prosecuted. The Assistant in Charye of 


this section is John F. Dwyer. It is the duty of this section 
to screen cases to make sure that each arrest is thorouyhly 
evaluated prior to filiny, and that the appropriate charges are 
filed witli the court. The experienced attorneys assigned to 
this section understand felony jury trials and know what cases 
should be introduced into the court system. by separating the 
function of case screeniny from the presentation of felony 
trials, tne General Litiyation attorneys may exclusively 
concentrate on preparation and trial. The Intake section also 
provides a centralized location for police inspectors to 
present a case for review, and it insured that complex or 
serious cases can be identified early for special assiyninent. 

The felony preliminary heariny is conducted by a 
Municipal Court Judye to determine whether there is probable 
cause to order a person charyed with a felony to stand trial in 

: the Superior Court. Felony cases oriyinaliy filed by the 
Intake section are assiyned to General Litiyation and are 
presented to the court by the Preliminary Heariny section. The 
Assistant in charge of the preliminary heariny section is 
Gerald Koeiliny. Ten attorneys and four investiyators are 
assiyned to this unit. The attorneys assiyned to this section 
handle all pre-heariny motions, discovery, and prepare and 
present felony preliminary hearinys. Approximately five 

. hundred new felony cases are filed each month, in excess of 
two-thirds are handled by the preliminary heariny section. 
Assistant District Attorneys in the preliminary 


hearing courts also have the responsibility of preparing any 
motion or writ occasioned by an adverse ruling by the 
preliminary hearing magistrate. Prior to January 1, 1981, if a 
magistrate discharged a case due to an error of law, the 
district attorney could only re-file the charge and attempt to 
rectity the problem at the next preliminary hearing. Penal 
Code section 871.5, effective on January 1, 1981, provides for 
review by a Superior Court Judge who has the power to order the 
case reinstated. This procedure requires the filing of a 
notice, opening briefs by both sides, response briefs and court 
hearing. This form of appeal, as well as writs, takes 
substantial research and writing, and is usually done outside 
normal working hours, as the day-to-day operation of the 
preliminary hearing department leaves no time for sucn matters. 

The assistant in charge of the General Litigation 
section in the Superior Court is Leonard Louie. Eleven trial 
attorneys serve in this section and these attorneys receive 
their case assignments after the preliminary hearing has been 
completed in Municipal Court. The General Litigation attorney 
is thereafter responsible for all further investigation, 
pretrial motions, and all other aspects of the trial of the 
case. General Litigation cases comprise a full spectrum of 
felony crimes including: attempted murder, robbery, aggravated 
assault, burglary, kidnapping, auto theft, embezzelment welfare 
fraud, and forgery. This prosecution section is considered to 


be the backbone of the felony trial staff and serviny in this 
yroup provides the General Litiyation attorney with the 
opportunity to prosecute a variety of serious cases and to 
yradually assume yreater trial responsibilities as his or her 
trial skills develop. 







1980-81 1981-82 

Number Accused 






Before Trial: 


Cases Transferred 

Guilty Pleas 

Guilty Pleas 


After Trial 
tfy Court: 





















Found Guilty 





Found Not Guilty 





By Jury: 

Found Guilty 





Found Not Guilty 






SUPERIOR COURT 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 



Other Data: 

Juries Sworn 227 266 2U3 231 

995 P.C. Hearings 348 381 412 407 

1538.5 P.C. 

Hearings 262 269 267 258 

Hearings 3845 3586 4091 4345 

Diversions 23 9 185 16 


conferences 1836 1885 1971 1778 











Numuer Accused 







before Trial: 


Cases Transferred 

Guilty Pleas 

Guilty Pleas 



























After Trial 

By Court: 

Found Guilty 






Found Not Guilty 






by Jury: 

Founu Guilty 






Found Not Guilty 







continued) 197b 1979 198U 1981 1982 

Other Data: 

Juries Sworn 

99b P.C. Hearinys 

1538.5 P.C. Hearinys 

Probation Hearinys 


Conferences 1771 182U 1825 2139 14b3 





























While collar crime and criminal corruption committed by 
government officials constitutes a unique sort of crime. White 
collar crimes can be committed by the upper-echelon executive as 
well as tiie clerk working in a department store. These crimes are 
planned necessarily in a clever, deceitful manner with one of the 
main priorities being concealment of the conspiracy. For these 
reasons traditional responses by law enforcement are inadequate. 

The special Prosecutions Section is an independent unit of 
the San Francisco District Attorney's Office with investigative 
resources and skilled attorneys capable of providing a unique and 
intense response to white collar crime. During the period of 
January 198U through July 1982, the Unit was comprised of five 
attorneys, seven investigators and three support staff. The 
Assistant in charge is Peter Aviles. Through April of 1981, the 
Unit derived most of its funding through discretionary grants from 
the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration in Washington, D.C. 
As of May 1981, the Special Prosecutions Unit became a part of the 
Mayor's Crime Prevention Program and since then derives its entire 
funding from the City and County of San Francisco. 

In the past three years, the Unit initated two hundred and 
twenty-two (222) investigations involving various areas involving 
major white collar crimes and official corruption. Because of the 
complexity and high degree of sophistication 


involved in these offenses, a yreat deal of investigative time 
and resources are required to carry them throuyh to arrest and 
conviction. Therefore, unlike traditional prosecution units 
which handle a larye volume of cases involving such crimes as 
burylary or robbery, the Special Prosecutions Section must 
necessarily concentrate its resources on a relatively small 
number of complex cases. 

A description of some of the ma3or cases prosecuted duriny 
the past three years will provide an accurate overview of the 
intensity with which this Unit conaucts the investiyation and 
prosecution of public corruption and major white 
collar/conspiratorial offenses occurriny within the City and 
County of San Francisco. 

international currency Exchanye (ICE Case) - The 
investiyation surroundiny the International Currency Exchanye 
case has lea to the charyiny of thirteen individuals and four 
companies with a total of 368 counts of felony Grand Theft, 53 
Corporations Code violations and two charyes of conspiracy for 
alleyedly defraudiny California residents out of $2.6 million 
throuyh a fraudulent investment scheme. The defendants' 
system involved promises of quick profits to the victims 
throuyh investment in foreiyn currency. To date, 12 cases 
have been completed. Eight of the defendants pleaded yuilty 
to a total of 7 counts of Grand Theft and 13 counts of various 
Corporations Code violations. Two of the defendants were 
found yuilty of one count of Grand Theft and 5 counts of 


various corporations Code violations following a jury trial. 
One of trie key members of the conspiracy was located in 
Panama, deported and returned to San Francisco. He was 
convicted and sentenced to a term in State Prison. Another 
key member of the conspiracy has also been convicted and is 
currently serviny a term in prison. The principal member of 
the conspiracy is scheduled to yo to trial in 1983. 

Foryery and Grand Theft by a State University 
Employee A four-month investiyation of this case has led to 
the arrest of three individuals for felony embezzlement yrand 
theft and misappropriation of funds from a State Univeristy. 
Throuyh use of her position as an administrative assistant at 
the ayency, one major suspect had diverted ayency money in 
excess of two hundred thousand dollars to her personal use. 
Her duties included prepariny students' requests for payment 
of expenses incurred in the course of their work, authoriziny 
such payments and obtaining and deliveriny payment checks. On 
June 23, 1981, the defendant pleaded yuilty to three felony 
counts and she has been sentenced to serve a term of three 
years in State Prison. 

Misappropriation of Public Funds - Prescription Druy 
Flan, City's health Service System . The chary es of 
misappropriation of public funds and attempted yrand theft 
stemmed from the suspect's alleyed misuse of monies entrusted 
to him to administer the prescription druy plan of the City's 
Health service system. Between February and October of 198U, 


the suspect was issued over $550,000 by the Health Service 
System to reimburse pharmacists who filled prescriptions for 
city employees and retirees. Accordiny to evidence, over 
$100,000 ot tnese funds were diverted to unauthorized purposes 

The suspect's corporation contracted with the city in 
February of lytso to run the prescription druy plan for 15,U00 
subscribers to the City's Health System. Under terms of the 
agreement, tne company was to receive $b per month for each 
subscriber or approximately $90,000 per month to reimburse 
participating pharmacies. The firm was entitled to retain 500 
of each $6.0U payment. 

Approximately four months later, the health system 
began receiviny complaints from pharmacies reyardiny 
non-payment by tiie corporation. The suspect indicated the 
payments had been made, wtien in fact, no payments were made. 
In addition, City funds were comminyled with funds from the 
corporation's other clients. 

The defendant was convicted of a felony and 
sentenced. The Court included $100,000 restitution to the city 
as part of the sentence imposed. 

Grand Theft and Foryery - A Grand Jury indictment 
issued charyiny the owner of a restaurant with 10 counts of 
Grand Theft and Foryery. The charyes related to a series of 
real estate swindles involviny losses exceediny $500,000. 
While posiny as a real estate broker, tne suspect foryed 
escrow receipts for the purpose of showiny the prospective 


buyer that the suspect had already deposited the suspects own 
money into escrow for the buyers. In turn, the suspect would 
receive reimbursement from the victim for these non-existent 
deposits. The defendant has pleaded nolo contendere to all 
counts and has been sentenced to a suspended term of five 
years in State Prison, to serve one year in County Jail, and 
to make restitution set at $21U,0Uu to the victims of this 

Extortion from City Officials - Investiyation 
surrounding this case led to the arrest of a suspect on 7 
counts of extortion from a city official and a candidate for 
public office. Anonymous letters sent by the suspect to the 
news media led to the matching of both the handwritiny and the 
typewriter used by the suspect in makiny threats and demands 
from his would-be victims. The defendant has pleaded yuilty 
to 2 counts of attempted extortion and has been sentenced to 
three years probation on condition that he serve 6 months in 
County jail. 

Misappropriation of Escrow Funds - This was a complex 
fraud conspiracy consistiny of misappropriation of escrow 
funds in excess of $1.1 million dollars. Followiny intensive 
investiyation and a three year leyal battle by investiyators 
and attorneys in the unit, the principal defendant has been 
convictea of 12 counts of yrand theft resultiny in a four year 
State Prison commitment for his involvement in the defraudiny 
of his victims of over $660, 0U0. The second defendant has 


pleaded nolo contendere to 1 count of yrand theft with the end 
convicted of various charyes. as a result, the Chairwoman of 
the Board of Directors of the Corporation is presently serving 
a two year term in state Prison. 

Food Theft Ring - Investigation surrounding the 
alleged stealing of thousands of dollars in foodstuffs - 
ranging from slabs of bacon to cases of fruit juice - from 
San Francisco General Hospital led to the conviction of 5 
persons, 4 of whom were employees of the hospital. Three of 
these persons were convicted of felonies, and received fines, 
county jail time, restitution and/or community services as 
conditions of probation. A fourth employees, a member of the 
jhospital security staff, was convicted of a misdemeanor and 
ordered to make restitution and perform community service. 
All employees lost their jobs. The non-employee was also 
convicted of a misdemeanor. 

In conjunction with the Grand Jury investigation into 
the case, one institutional police officer was convicted of 
perjury, and two hospital employees were convicted of refusal 
to answer material questions. These three persons also lost 
their jobs at the hospital 

Kxtortion - Intensive investigation surrounding 
purported extortion threats involving certain Redevelopment 
Agency Projects led to tne arrest of an Affirmative Action 
Specialist employed by the San Francisco Redevelopment 
Agency. He was subsequently convicted of bribery and being a 


felon in possession or a weapon. he received a state prison 
suspended sentence, ana was placed on probation for a period 
of b years, with the conditions that he serve a year in the 
county jail and that he testify truthfully before the Grand 
Jury and in any related court proceedinys. 

Largely as a result of his testimony, the Grand Jury 
indicted another individual on 2b felony counts, including 
charyes of conspiracy, extortion, grand theft, perjury, tax 
evasion, and falsification of corporate records. That case is 
currently pendiny in the Municipal Court. 

In conjunction with the just mentioned indictment, 
the Grand Jury issued a 12 paye report, criticisiny certain 
aspects of the role of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 
in the U.b. Postal Service General Mail Facility project in 
the India Basin. That report contained both factual findinys 
and recommendations, and a referral to the San Francisco Civil 
Grand Jury. 

Misappropriation of CKTA Funds - An investiyation 
into possible widespread fraud involviny the use of CETA funds 
has been completed. Information received indicated that a job 
traininy proyram supported by state funds and desiyned to aid 
in the rehabilitation of juveniles merely provided a cover for 
the perpetrators of this fraud. Alleyations surrounded the 
issuance or payroll checks for non-existent persons and 
payment of kickbacks in exchanye for jobs which led to the 
arrest of the director of the proyram and the serviny of three 


search warrants on the residences of those whose involvement 
with the program was suspect. Following a jury trial, the 
director of the program and another suspect arrested on 
similar charges were found guilty and are now serving 
sentences in County Jail. 

Gold Investment Fraud - In conjunction with the Fraud 
Detail of the San Francisco Police Department and the 
Department of Corporations the Section investigated and 
prosecuted a case involving a gold investment scheme which is 
being perpetrated in the area. Basically, the suspect in this 
scheme would solicit investments for the purpose of buying 
gold for his victims. He would then lease the gold back from 
the victim promising to pay a monthly rental fee in addition 
to making the gold into jewelry for sale and profit. However, 
in reality, the initial purchase of gold by the defendant 
never took place. There are six victims to date with a loss 
estimated oetween $300, 000 to $400,000. The defendant pled 

Extortion - Another investigation initiated involved 
a staff member at a city agency who allegedly extorted monies 
from his victims under the pretense that they had received 
overpayments from the Welfare Department. The suspect would, 
in turn, divert the monies his victims paid him to his own 
personal use. There are eight known victims at this time. 
The defendant has since pleaded guilty to one county of Grand 


Theft with the end result being two years probation, 150 hours 
community service and $1,7U1 in fines and restitution plus 
further restitution pending supplementary investigation report 
from the Probation Department. 

District Attorney Family Support Division - An 
internal administrative investigation into the Family Support 
Division of the District Attorney's Office resulted in the 
firing or resignation of b employees in that division. 
Information was received indicating that possession, use and 
sale of controlled susbstance and/or narcotics were taking 
place. The investigation was successfully completed through 
interviews of employees, the use of undercover personnel, 
review of files and pertinent records, polygraph examinations 
and other investigative techniques. 

Perjury - A case involving perjury by a San Francisco 
Police Officer during testimony before the Retirement Board 
has been successfully prosecuted. The officer was charged 
with two counts of perjury while testifying before the Board 
regarding a work-incurred disability. He has been found 
guilty of swearing falsely in an affidavit. 

Stolen Test Conspiracy - A recent investigation 
surrounding alleged trafficking in stolen college entrance 
examinations had led to the arrest of three suspects on 
charges of conspiracy, grand theft and possession of stolen 
property. The evidence indicated that some of the stolen 
tests, ranging from English language to graduate entrance 


exams, were tunnelled between the United States and Taiwan in 
order to open immigration channels for those students who 
might otherwise have been denied visas. 

The funding received in the past has enabled the 
Special Prosecution Section to respond to major white-collar 
crimes and otticial corruption with the quality ana 
aggressiveness necessary to successfully target and combat a 
number of such crimes. The impact of the Section in terms of 
monetary value alone has resulted in a multi-fold return on 
that investment. however, it is clear that with the present 
staffing and limited funding the Special Prosecution Section 
is not aule to investigate all cases which come to the 
attention of the section. Every effort is made to use the 
available resources to the best advantage of our community. 



Tne San Francisco District Attorney's Consumer Fraud 
Section otters a wide range of consumer services to San 
Francisco residents. The Consumer Fraud Section provides 
mediation, community outreach and education activities as well 
as civil and criminal prosecution to enforce state and local 

consumer protection laws. 

The section, which was first organized in March, 
1976, presently consists of five attorneys, four 
investigators, three complaint mediation specialists, and four 
clerical support staff. Fifteen volunteer student interns and 
two senior citizens volunteers supplement the mediation 
staff. Four law externs are utilized by staff attorneys each 
semester. Citizens can be assisted by a diverse staff which 
can communicate in Chinese, German, Spanish, French and 
Tagaloy languages. 

Many federal complaint-handling services have 
experienced buaget cuts, as a result, San Francisco 
residents, local and state regulatory and law enforcement 
agencies, and legal assistance programs have turned to the San 
Francisco District Attorney for information, assistance and 



A significant number of cases undertaken by the 
attorneys and investigators of the Consumer Fraud section are 
pursued with an aim towards correcting problems in the San 
Francisco and Bay Area marketplace. The primary goal of civil 
lawsuits filed has been to seek prompt and permanent 
injunctive relief in order to terminate unlawful, unfair or 
fraudulent business practices. In the appropriate cases, 
restitution is sought for victims, in addition to civil 
penalties and tne costs of litigation. 

Suits filed by the Section clearly demonstrate that 
the District Attorney seeks to vigorously enforce laws against 
violators who prey on consumers using sham business 
practices. As a result of civil and criminal cases filed in 
fiscal 1979 - 1980, the section collected $139,000 in court 
ordered restitution, penalties and costs. In fiscal 
L980-1981, consumers received $10,730.07 through court ordered 
restitution and $78,939.01 was collected in civil penalties 
and costs. In fiscal 1981-1982 consumers received $95,743.00 
in restitution, civil penalties and costs. 

Currently (FY 82-83) emphasis has been placed on 
inlawful and fraudulent schemes in housing and home 
Improvement, automobile sale and repair, non-professional 
services, and business and advertising practices. Most of 


the more than 120 current matters either filed or under active 
investigation may be classified in one of these categories. 

Criminal actions filed by the Consumer Fraud Section 
include the first criminal case successfully prosecuted for 
violation of San Francisco's landlord-tenant rent 
stabilization ordinance and a case which halted the fraudulent 
activity of certain travel agencies which expected non-English 
speaking customers. 

Other significant criminal actions prosecuted include; 
successful prosecution of phony immigration counselors and a 
defendant who bilked over 20 victims out of more than $500,000 
with a sham electrical fixtures investment scheme; 
prosecutions and convictions of unlicensed medical and legal 
practitioners as well as imposters; prosecution of many 
unlicensed home repair contractors; prosecution and conviction 
of a local law enforcement official who misappropriated over 
$60,000 in City and utility company funds; and prosecution of 
a local businessman who attempted to defraud San Francisco 
residents through a charitable solicitation scheme involving a 
lottery and gambler's ball, and the successful prosecution of 
an attorney for illegally altering a client's will. 

The Consumer Fraud Section has also filed significant 
civil actions requesting civil penalties, restitution and 
injunctive relief as a means of protecting consumer rights. 
Successful civil cases filed include: one of the city's 
largest advertisers of television/video equipment who had 


enyayed in false and misleadiny advertising in addition to 
deceptive sales practices; a data firm operator who bilked Bay 
Area accountants and bookkeepers out of more than $125, OUU; a 
San Francisco employment ayency that enyayed in false 
advertisiny and unfair business practices, and which violated 
employment ayency reyulations deceiviny job applicants seekiny 
employment opportunities in San Francisco; and a clothiny 
retailer who falsely advertised a "closiny out" sale. 


The Consumer Fraud Section's complaint mediation 
service offers an alternative for consumers and businesses to 
voluntarily resolve disputes without resortiny to the courts. 
The mediators in the consumer Fraud section are impartial 
yo-betweens who help the consumer and the business work out a 
solution to their problem. This free service is directed 
primarily at protectiny and educatiny people who have often 
been the victims of fraudulent, unscrupulous and unfair 
business practices — namely, the poor, the non-Enylish 
speakiny and the elderly. 

The complaint mediation staff investiyates and 
mediates over 20U individual consumer complaints each month. 
The amounts involved in the disputes ranye from a few dollars 
to several thousand and include such problems as: housiny and 
rehabilitation, defective merchandise, auto repair, mail order 


transactions, and misleading advertisiny. Much of the 
mediation work is performed by student volunteers from local 
universities and law schools and is of little cost to the 

Approximately one-third of the complaints received by 
the Mediation Unit are referred to staff investigators and 
attorneys for consideration of civil and/or criminal 

In 1980, the mediation section handled 2/944 consumer 
complaints and recovered $193,179.00 in goods and services for 
consumers. In 1981, 2,512 complaints were resolved and 
$165,897.00 was recovered. From January to June 1982, over 
1100 complaints were mediated and over $74,000 returned to 
consumers. The enthusiastic efforts of the complaint 
nediation staff have resulted in recovering over $450,000 
since 1980 and over $1 million since the mediation services 
:>egan in 1976. This unique approach to voluntary dispute 
esolution has enabled San Franciscans to receive immediate 
assistance without having to resort to an already over 
jurdened court system. 


The Consumer Fraud staff provides an energetic 


outreach proyram to inform Bay Area consumers about their 
leyal remedies. In tne past two years, the staff has 
presented over 75 lectures to community yroups and classes and 
over 2,uuu public service consumer messayes on various local 
television and radio stations. 

Twice a week, mediation volunteers reyularly staff a 
booth at San Francisco City Hall to provide free consumer 
pamphlets, referral assistance and help to those with consumer 
problems . 

In Octooer, 198U, the office sponsored Consumer Day 
in Union Square as part of National Consumer Education Week. 
This well-received proyram featured presentations and the 
distribution of consumer materials from various yovernment and 
community oryanizations as well as speeches from local 
yovernment officials and radio personalities. 

The staff actively works with the business community 
and various yovernment ayencies to increase public awareness 
of consumer protection laws which yovern advertisiny and 
retail sales. In June, 1980, the office offered a consumer 
education workshop for jewelry retailers which included 
presentations from the Consumer Fraud Unit, the State Attorney 
General, and the Better Business Bureau, providiny 
constructive information to retailers about applicable laws 
affectiny their businesses. 

In Auyust, 1981, the office sponsored a San Francisco 
Refund Ordinance in conjunction with the San Francisco 


Retailers Association, San Francisco Consumer Action, and the 
Better Business Bureau. This is the only consumer legislation 
in the state that sets refund guidelines for stores which do 
not offer refunds exchanges or credit to their customers. 

The Consumer Fraud Section has assisted in drafting 
local legislation to address problems in the areas of vehicle 
towing from private property. This ordinance was recently 
enacted by the Board of Supervisors. 

Finally, in February, 198^, the District Attorney 
through the Consumer Fraud Section sponsored the consumer 
Congress, a day-long symposium which brought together business 
and community consumer leaders to develop ways in which they 
could effectively work together to handle consumer complaints 
and inform their staff about pertinent consumer laws and 



State law provides for two Grand Juries in San 
Francisco. une Grand Jury nas responsibility for reviewing 
the operations of municipal government in San Francisco. The 
other Grand Jury which is called the Indictment Grand Jury, 
investigates public offenses hears evidence presented by the 
District Attorney which may result in an indictment. An 
indictment is a written accusation filed by the Grand Jury in 
the superior Court charymg a person with a public offense. 
The Indictment Grand Jury is an arm of the Superior Court and 
consists of 19 members, selected by the court from the 
citizens of the City and county of San Francisco. 

Since 1978 when the Supreme court of California 
decided the case of People v. Hawkins , the nature of the cases 
presented to the Indictment Grand Jury has changed 
dramatically. The hawkins decision ruled that an indicted 
defendant has the right to a post-indictment preliminary 
hearing in felony cases, which means that the same evidence 
which had been presented to the Grand Jury and which resulted 
in an indictment, was now required to be again presented to a 
magistrate to determine whether the defendant should be 
certified to the Superior court for trial. This duplication 
of hearings, with the attendant inconvenience to witnesses, 
the repetition of testimony and the added strain upon already 


limited resources, caused many cases previously prosecuted by 
Grand Jury indictment to be more efficiently presented by way 
of complaint. Thus, the emphasis in Grand Jury practice has 
shitted from a crime charging orientation to an investigative 
orientation. The change in functions was immediately 
reflected Dy the 158 defendants indicted in 1978, and only one 
defendant indicted in 1979. 

In 198U-1981, the Grand Jury convened more often than 
in previous years, and at each session the District Attorney 
or an Assistant District Attorney acted as the legal advisor 
to that body. The 1981-1982 Grand Jury which began in 
November of 1981 met an average of two days a week for six 
months. This was a departure from prior years when the Grand 
Jury usually met one day per week during the one year term. 

Commencing in 1980, the activity of the Grand Jury 
dramatically increased and the majority of the cases presented 
to the Indictment Grand Jury consisted of investigations 
initiated by the special Prosecutions section of the District 
Attorney's Office. For example, in 1980 a garment shop owner 
was indicted for tax, corporations code, and unemployment 
insurance code violations; a real estate developer was 
indicted on forgery and theft charges; a police officer was 
Indicted for perjury; an individual was indicted for 
possession of bomb making materials; and an individual was 
indicted for threatening an executive officer. In 1981 the 
Grand Jury increased its meetings to twice per week. 


Indictments were returned against three individuals, one of 
rfhom was an institutional security guard, who committed 
perjury in connection with an investiyation of thefts from the 
ian Francisco General hospital. Also an investigation 
commenced which ultimately, in 1982, resulted in an indictment 
it a building contractor in the City on 26 felony counts of 
:heft, tax evasion, and extortion. 

Although occasionally other cases are presented to 
he Grand Jury (generally to toll the running of the statute 
3f limitations) , the Grand Jury is currently used almost 
entirely to investigate business crime, major conspiracies, 
official corruption, and consumer fraud. 











10 OF DEF'S. 





JURY MEETINGS 38 44 42 64 



Arson is a serious, deadly crime. In our country each 
year there is property loss in excess of one billion dollars 
and more importantly, over 1,U00 people die annually as a 
result of arson. Data compiled by the United States Fire 
Administration shows that generally less than 10% of those who 

commit arson in California are identified. The national 
average of convictions in relation to known arson fires is a 
dismal low of approximately 3%. However, in San Francisco it 
is 9%. 

The California Supreme Courts has recognized the 
extreme difficulty in successfully prosecuting arson cases. In 
1972 the Court observed that by its very nature, arson is a 
crime in which eyewitnesses are rare and to an unusual degree 
the prosecution must of necessity rely on small bits and pieces 
of circumstantial evidence. 

The number of incendiary and suspicious fires across 
the nation is high and San Francisco is no exception. In 
fiscal year 1981 - 1982 fire experts positively concluded that 
more than 432 fires in San Francisco were of incendiary 
origin. The residents of San Francisco are very fire 
conscious. Fire completely razed our city several times in its 
early years. The great bulk of damage April 18, 1906, was 
caused, not by the earthquake, but by the resultant fire. 


In order to combat arsonists, San Francisco has formed 
a special Arson Task Force which includes members from the 
Bureau of Fire Investigation, two ban Francisco Police 
Department Inspectors, and an experienced assistant district 
attorney, Paul Cummins. Each of the investigators and 
inspectors has been accorded special training in the cause and 
origin of fires. The assistant district attorney assigned to 
this group has extensive felony jury trial experience. He is 
in daily contact with other members of the Arson Task Force. 
The goal of the Arson Task Force is the successful prosecution 
of arsonists and the merging of these three departments insures 
a high quality of work from each component by virtue of the 
exchange of information and expertise. Because one of the 
biggest problems in an arson case is in proving that the fire 
had a criminal, not accidental origin, the Arson Task Force 
includes on going training in the law by an assistant district 
attorney. The skills of the other task force members are 
monthly honed by speakers from within the San Francisco Fire 
Department who lecture on a wide range of fire-related topics. 
The value of this program is demonstrated by a conviction rate 
three times greater than the national average. This task force 
was recently praised oy the San Francisco Civil Grand Jury for 
jits outstanding work. 

The District Attorney's Office is directly affected by 
the growing number of arson suspects being arrested and 
thereafter prosecuted for arson. In 198U, 45 suspects were 


arrested and 31 felony complaints were filed. In 1981, 52 
suspects were arrested and there were 43 filings. In 1982 the 
felony arrest rate for arson continued to rise. There were 59 
arrests and 38 felony filings. 

The bigyest arson case in the history of San Francisco 
was successfully tried in April of 1982. Defendant Otis Bloom 
torched the rear door of a building formerly known as the 
"Barracks" on Folsom street near 7th Street. The roaring fire 
rapidly spread to 2b buildings, 18 of which were totally 
destroyed along with 19 cars. A conservative estimate of the 
damaye in tiiat one fire was over 6 million dollars. The 
District Attorney's office prevailed in both the guilt and 
sanity phases despite the large expenditure of public monies by 
the defendant for psychiatric defenses. The defendant received 
the maximum commitment to state prison. Also in 1982 four 
arson-related homicide cases were prosecuted by the Arson Task 
Force and convictions were secured in each case. 



The Misdemeanor Trial Section of the District 
attorney's Office prosecutes offenses classified by law as 
less serious than felonious conduct. These offenses range 
from infractions, subject to punishment by fine only, to 
crimes which are technically identical to some felony offenses 
but are not grave enough factually to constitute felonies, 
misdemeanors regulate almost every facet of human conduct and 
nave a substantial impact upon our community because of the 
sheer volume of misdemeanor arrests made each year. If 
felonies are the crimes which cause the engine of society to 
explode and stop, misdemeanors are the grit in the lubricant 
Df social cooperation. 

Misdemeanor offenses must be effectively prosecuted 
Dn a broad scale to maintain and improve the quality of life 
In San Francisco. Although all classes of these crimes must 
ae prosecuted, the large and increasing numbers of misdemeanor 
irrests make it impossible to take to trial each and every 
:ase presented to the office. Even if every court and 
Assistant District Attorney tried only misdemeanor cases, such 
efforts could never keep pace with the number of arrests, 
iowever, it would be unwise and unrealistic to divert manpower 
ind resources from the prosecution of serious felony offenses 
o accommodate additional misdemeanor trials in the face of an 
expanding felony work-load. With these limitations in mind we 


iave employed the new approach discribed herein to make better 
use of the staff assiyned to misdemeanor cases. 

Misdemeanor crime is serious crime. The drunken 
drivers, the vandals, the bullies and petty thieves, the 
prostitutes and druy users, the rowdies and car thieves, to 
mention some, all combine to detract from the peaceful, 
jnmolested pursuit of happiness which our law-abidiny citizens 
seek. The seriousness of misdemeanor crime in San Francisco 
is demonstrated by a total of 58,613 adult misdemeanor booking 
arrests duriny 1981, a 27% rise from 198U. These arrests rose 
:o 61,809 in 1982. Add to this an 8U% rise in adult citations 
bo 9,5U6 for the year 1981 and a further increase to 14,562 
Eor 1982, and the problem becomes apparent. This buryeoning 
caseload of referrals presents a severe challenye. 

This administration has therefore attempted to focus 
its efforts ayainst the more serious misdemeanor crimes, 
especially those invoiviny violence, the use or possession of 
weapons, and driviny under the influence. At the same time, 
all classes of crime are prosecuted within the misdemeanor 
courts on a priority basis. To accomplish this, a misdemeanor 

harye-screeniny team has been established to provide an 
experienced and thorouyh advance review of matters presented 
cor prosecution. Also, a violent street crimes unit 
supervised oy Ken Cady has been implemented to evaluate and 
monitor crimes invoiviny assaultive conduct. To further 

nnance misdemeanor prosecutions, onyoiny investiyative 


procedures have been set up, within the limits of manpower and 
resources, to obtain as much investiyation as possible before 
sharyes are instituted and continuing throuyh to disposition 
Df the case. 



The Bureau of Investigation of the San Francisco 
district Attorney's Office is comprised of a total of 4u 
Investigators, 2 process servers and 1 secretary, all of whom 
report to the Chief Investigator, John J. Cleary. District 
attorney Investigators are assigned to function in the 
following sections: Sixteen (16) in the Criminal Division; 
sight (8) in the Welfare Fraud section; seven (7) in the 
Jpecial Prosecutions Section; five (b) in the Consumer Fraud 
jection; two (2) in the Career Criminal Program; two (2) in 
■he Juvenile Division and one (1) in the Psychiatric Court 

Investigators assigned to the Criminal Division 
>erform post-arrest investigations requested by the trial 
tttorneys, prepare demonstrative evidence such as diagrams of 
rime scene locations and color photography displays for jury 
rials, provide a variety of support functions in extensive 
nd complex cases, and provide a wide variety of witness 
ransportation and protective services. 

In addition the District Attorney has placed new 
mphases on original investigation of economic crime, public 
orruption, welfare fraud and allegations of serious crime, 
istrict Attorney Investigators also respond to all incidents 
nvolving a shooting by or of a police officer and 


investiyators compile independent findinys which are submitted 
to the District Attorney. The Bureau of Investigations also 
provides audio/video recordiny of conditional examinations of 
witnesses in court and of attorney traininy sessions. 

Four investiyators are assiyned to provide full-time 
assistance to the attorneys in the felony preliminary heariny 
courts. The primary function of these investiyators is to 
Locate missiny witnesses and to conduct follow-up 

In 15*81 the Bureau of Investiyation was able to 
jrnploy two full-time process servers. These individuals 
served over 11UU subpoenas and related documents, thereby 
^ermittiny the investiyators to concentrate on evidence 
jatheriny and other investiyations. Witness and victim 
services have increased considerably due to increased case 
volume. Individual process servers occasionally have had as 
nany as seven persons to locate or transport to court per 
iay. There is need for more process servers to assist in 
jettiny known witnesses to court. 

The Special Prosecutions Section investiyates matters 
)f extreme sensitivity and complexity involviny oryanized 
'rime, corruption, and major criminal conspiracies. some of 
such cases may take up to one year or more to present to the 
Jrand Jury. 

The career Criminal Section is yuided by the 
provisions of Section 13850 et. seq. , of the Penal Code. 


These sections mandates concentrated prosecutorial efforts to 
address the issue of habitual offenders cases. The District 
Attorney's investiyators remain assiyned to individual cases 
throuyh termination of court proceedinys. The efforts of such 
concentrated investiyative efforts result in increased 
penalties at time of sentenciny. 


198U 1981 1982 


Special assiynments 

Matters Assiyned to outside ayencies 

Assistance provided to outside ayencies 

Police shootiny investiyations 

On view arrests 

Arrests Warrant 

Search warrants 

Conditional examinations, Video and Audio 137 

Section 1381 investiyations 

Witness assistance, pick up and protection 20U 

Special services, diayrams, charts etc. 

Court appearances (hours) 

Background checks 

Rehabilitation and pardon (hours) 

Subpoena service 



















































The Welfare Fraud Investigation unit of the District 
Attorney's Office has the responsibility for the prevention, 
detection/ investigation and prosecution of welfare fraud in 
the city and County of san Francisco. Tom Kasovich is the 
Chief Welfare Fraud Investigator. He supervises the work of a 
senior investigator, six criminal investigators, a legal 
stenographer and a clerk-typist. Additional clerical support 
is provided by the Department of Social Services. The cases 
developed for prosecution are referred to Assistant District 
Attorneys snelly wydans and Cloey Hewlett. 

The benefit programs protected by the welfare fraud 
investigators are the Aid to Families with Dependent Children, 
General Assistance and Food stamps. The benefits paid by these 
three aid programs approximates $123, UUO, 000 per year. 

In its first fiscal year of operation (fiscal year 1981 - 
1982) the performance of the team of investigators and 
prosecutors was very productive and cost-effective. The value 
to our community of this unified approach to the investigation 
and prosecution of welfare fraud cases is demonstrated in the 
following table: 



1981-82 1982-83 

Fraud Referrals 1,676 2,373 

Investiyations completed 687 1,517 

Investigations to D.A. for prosecution 231 241 

Investiyations Closed Administratively 143 622 

Investiyations resulting in Discontinuance 

or denial of aid 67 204 

overpayments uncovered by Investigations 1,015,520 1,405,570 

Yearly savings from Discontinuance or 

denial 401,000 670,500 

Investigations pending 989 1,845 

The current investigation caseload indicates a need 
tor eight (8) additional field investigators and one additional 
senior investigator in order to reduce case backlog and prevent 
additional backlog from building. The State Department of 
Social Services Manual suggests a staffing of one field 
Investigator per each 1,000 AFDC aid cases, based on that 
atio, San Francisco should employ eight (8) more field 
mvestigators in view of the 14,859 currently active AFDC cases 
luring the quarter ending June 1983. 



Section 5114 of the California Welfare and 
Institutions Code provides that the District Attorney shall 
appear in cases concerning allegations that a person is a 
danger to himself or others or gravely disabled as a result of 
mental disorder or impairment caused by chronic alcoholism. 
This mandate requires that the District Attorney both 
investigate cases of this nature, and present them in the 
Superior Court. Psycniatric cases fall into the following 

1. conservatorships 

2. certifications - Imminently 
Dangerous Persons 

3. Developmentally disabled 

4. Writs 

CONSERVATORSHIP (Section 535U Welfare and Institutions 
Code et seq) . Conservatorship cases are presented by the 
district attorney, on recommendation of the San Francisco 
Mental Health Program, to provide care, supervision and where 
appropriate, institutional commitment for persons who, as a 
result of mental disorder are unable to provide for their basic 
personal needs of food, clothing or shelter. The district 
attorney presents evidence to support the recommendation of the 


froyram Psychiatrists and conservatorship investiyators, before 
the Superior Court to show that a conservator is needed to 
assist the patient. 

Conservatorships are often opposed, either by 
contested heariny, writs of habeas corpus, jury trials, or a 
review heariny. Jury trials averaye 4 days of Superior Court 
:iine. In 1981 there were 1,872 conservatorship hearinys 

Certifications of Imminently Danyerous Persons 
[section 53UU Welfare and Institutions Code) The law provides 
cor commitment of mentally disordered persons who are 
considered imminently danyerous because of their behavior. 
L'hey may request a jury trial every 90 days in the issue of 
:heir danyer. The District Attorney presented 18 such cases in 
:he Superior Court in 1981: 16 were sent to State Hospital, 2 
ases were withdrawn for alternative treatment. 

Developmentally Disable d are mentally retarded persons 
iho are danyerous to themselves or others. The district 
ittorney must file on such cases (Sec. 6S00 and 6502 Welfare 
iind Institutions Code) and then present them in the superior 
Jourt. There were 34 such filinys and heariny in 1981. 

Persons beiny held in Psychiatric hospitals by 
:ertif ication or temporary conservatorship have the riyht to 
lemand release by riliny writs of habeas corpus demanding 
lUdicial review of their cases. It is the duty of the District 
ittorney to oppose such demands, if appropriate, and to present 


evidence to the Superior Court that such persons be held for 
further treatment and care. In 1981, 115 such writs were 
heard, 89 were denied by the court 26 were yranted. 

The allocation of public resources to the 
Investigation and prosecution of psychiatric cases has never 
directly addressed the needs in this area. Presently the 
district attorneys is provided with one psychiatric invstiyator 
tiho must look to other agencies for support, wo attorney is 
funded for this purpose and therefore this responsibility must 
^e shared with other duties. On the other hand, public funds 
provide four attorneys and a support staff to represent 
defendants before the psychiatric court. 

Up until the latter part of 1981 the Juvenile court 
served as psychiatric Court on one day a week, and jury trials 
/ere referred to the civil departments at City Hall. Staffiny 
vas thus available at Youth Guidance Center from the Assistant 
)istrict Attorneys assiyned to the Juvenile Court. In 1981, 
:he site of the psychiatric court was relocated to San 
••rancisco General Hospital and thereafter to the Hall of 
Justice. This relocation exacerbated an already difficult 
situation created by the enhanced leyal resources provided to 
:he mentally ill. The responsibility for prosecution of these 
rases had to be relocated to the Hall of Justice, and presently 
ests with the preliminary heariny section of the District 
attorney's Office. Each week, one attorney from this section 
lust handle a calendar of commitment cases and writs. This 


area is in serious need of additional staff and request for 
additional resources has been submitted. It is expected that 
this request will be acted upon in the near future. 



1978-79* 1980 1981 1982 


Hearings 111U 2U64 1872 1962 

drits of Habeas 

Corpus Denied 7U 63 89 107 

rtrits ot Habeas 

Corpus Granted 13 4U 26 20 

tfrits ot Habeas 

Corpus withdrawn 63 73 46 334 

30 Day 

5 8 18 32 

development ally 

disabled Commitments N/A 40 34 N/A 

Jury Trial Demands 7 4 13 15 

rotal Cases 1268 2292 2098 2470 


Fiscal Year 



The Victim - Witness Assistance Program is situated in 
the main office of the District Attorney at the Hall of 
Justice and at several satellite locations. The Executive 
Director is Anne Daley who is responsible for fiscal 
management, project operation, supervision of staff, and 
supervision of subordinate programs. A policy board sets 
guidelines for its operation. 

The program was established to assist victims of crime in 
Dbtaining compensation for their injuries and losses, and to 
assist them when they are summoned to testify in court. The 
program also reassures the public of the need for witnesses to 
appear and of the relative safety in participating as a 
witness to insure that guilty persons are brought before the 
~ourt. The scope of this program is evidenced in the 
following table of client services. 

Victim Witness Unit 

Jan. 1, 1980 - June 30, 1982 

Total clients Served: 3,896 

I.) State Board of Control Claims: 

Filed 389 

Settled 346 

Paid to Victims $520,821.59 

Denials 47 


The average amount received from the state by victims 
applying for reimbursement for injuries sufrered due to crime 
was $1,5U5.26. The cost per victim applying for reimbursement 
who was assisted by the Program was $65.16. All of the 
expenses of the local program are paid by the state. 

Aside from assisting victim-claimants in seeking 
indemnity from the state, Victim-Witness Assistance introduces 
many clients to a variety of community agencies from which 
they can gain necessary aid. Although the majority of violent 

rime victims seeking indemnity from the state are between 18 
and 4U years of age, elderly clients require the greatest 
variety of direct personal services. The Program provides 
Language translation, criminal justice information, counseling 
and crisis intervention as well as offering referrals for 
nedical, psychological and physical assistance, and shelter 
for victims of abuse and intimidation. Court escorts and 
witness transportation are daily functions of the Program. 
Providing legal assistance, making funeral arrangements and 
solving a myriad of assorted problems were handled as shown 

Support: 188 

CLC: 22 

-rime Prevention Information: 72 

funeral arrangements: 4 

-ounselliny: 43 

Legal assistance & Referrals: 13 

Advocacy: 111 

Center for Special problems: 18 

transportation: 196 

Reassurance & support: 35 


Referrals: 416 

Follow up counselliny: 12 

Medical: 28 

D.s.S. 57 

Salvation Army: 20 

Pro Bono Panel: 3b 

Orientation to (Jrim. Justice Info: 38 

St. Anthony's: 25 

crisis Intervention: 22 

1 . . C . : 1 

Court Escort: 16 
Family service: 

Property Return: 12 

Unemployment: 2 

Set Restraining Urder: 9 


Creditor Intervention: 13 

Food stamps: 3 

Small Claims Court Information: 2U 

Translation: 90 

Casa, WOMAN, Guest, etc. lb 

4isc. 14 

^ase Disposition: 4 

Since 19b0 the proyram was expanded to include specialized 
services of a much wider nature. First the Family Violence 
Project was added to deal with violence problems between 
persons within a household. Early in 1981 the Integrated 
Police Prosecution Proyram was implemented to coordinate 
witness appearances, and to guide them through the criminal 
justice process from subpoena to final case disposition. In 
he summer of 1981, the Community United Ayainst Violence, 
previously a volunteer ayency, received a yrant and was 
assiyned to VWAP by the board of Supervisors. 



The Family Violence Project was established in March 1980 
to improve the criminal justice system's response to family 
violence and to educate San Francisco residents about the 
potential lethality of this violence. The project director is 
Esta Soler. 

The amount of family violence shown Dy San Francisco 
crime statistics is substantial. The most frequent cause of 
homicides in our city in 1981 arose from family and personal 
relationships. Further, according to a 1981 San Francisco 
Examiner study, 39% of all assaults, attempted murders and 
nurders in the Bay Area were the direct result of family 

Family violence is a public safety issue as well as an 
individual concern. Last year there were two family related 
shootings with handguns on Market Street during business 
lours, thus exposing innocent bystanders to the dangers of 
iomestic tensions. An even more vivid example of the public 
safety aspects of family violence was the shooting in the 
offices of a large downtown insurance company on January 28, 
L982, where the suspect attempted to kill his wife and in the 
process, killed two bystanders and injured eight others, four 
}f whom will be permanently disabled. Family violence if left 
mchecked, does escalate and will lead to predictable but 
annecessary tragedies. 


The criminal justice system is the primary institution to 
which violence prone families may turn for help and 
protection. Through its power to enforce existing laws and 
punish offenders, it is the leading institution to publicly 
condemn all forms of violence. The criminal justice system 
nust take a large part of the leadership role in order to 
reduce family violence. 

Given that family violence is a crime and given that 
public laws provide protection and redress for the victims of 
amily violence, the criminal justice system is the single 
aost important means to protect family members from abuse, 
fortunately, there is a comprehensive project that seeks to 
protect the victims of family violence within the San 
Francisco Criminal Justice System. 

The efforts of the Family Violence Project have been 
Urected towards the goals of family protection, and have 
mcluded 1) new improved procedures within all branches of San 
Francisco's criminal justice system, 2) direct services for 
iomestic violence victims and their families, and 3) a public 
education program for San Francisco. During 1981 - 1982, the 
Family Violence Project's accomplishments included the 
following : 

ESTABLXShED a model victim services unit within the 
District Attorney's office which has assisted, over 2,500 
victims and their families in less tnan a year. The 
caseload has more than doubled. The victim services unit 
of the Family Violence Project provides intensive 
advocacy, case follow-up, supportive counseling and case 
investigations for hundreds of domestic violence cases 


ESTABLISHED a model counseling and Education Program for 
domestic violence offenders. During this year, provided 
intensive assessment, evaluation, and counseling to over 
300 domestic violence offenders. 

DEVELOPED and implemented model police training programs 
on the handling of domestic violence cases for ail levels 
of the San Francisco Police Department. 

IMPROVED the police arrest rate for domestic violence 
cases in San Francisco, resulting in a 6U% arrest rate 
increase between March 1980 and October 1981. 

DEVELOPED a training system for domestic violence cases 
for the san Francisco Police Department and co-authored a 
Special Bulletin on Domestic Violence with the San 
Francisco Police Department. 

ASSISTED in the development and institutionalization of a 
specialized domestic violence prosecution unit for felony 
domestic violence cases. 

DESIGNED, coordinated, and sponsored 2 major training 
conferences on elder abuse and family violence in the 
Asian and Pacific Island communities that were attended by 
over 1,000 representatives from the criminal justice, 
public health, military, legislative, community, social 
service, religious, legal and shelter-based agencies of 
San Francisco. 

TRAINED an additional 1,000 San Francisco service 
providers in family violence intervention techniques. 

DEVELOPED and distributed a San Francisco Resource 
Directory and a Family Violence Project Brochure to over 
7,500 agencies and individuals. (Chevron U.S.A. 
Incorporated donated the printing costs of the brochure) . 

developed, in conjunction with the select Committee on 
crime and Violence of the San Francisco Board of 
Supervisors, a resolution on family 'violence' which was a 
first for municipal governments. 

applied for, and received private foundation grants from 
the san Francisco Foundation, Levi Strauss Foundation, and 
Henry J. Kaiser Foundation. 



The Integrated police/Prosecution Project (IPP) was 
implemented in February, 1981. The Director is Ken Crandall. 
The project, originally funded by a Law Enforcement Assistance 
Administration grant, has sought to improve the management of 
civilian witnesses within four preliminary hearing courts. The 
project objectives, as stated within the grant proposal, are to 
improve the use of staff time within the Police Department and 
the District Attorney's Office, and to improve the criminal 
justice system's response to civilian witnesses. 

The establishment of the IPP suopoena-by-mail system has 
been the primary instrument for improved use of staff time 
within the Police Department and the District Attorney's 
Uffice. This system was created in response to the high volume 
of civilian witnesses subpoenaed for testimony in the 
preliminary courts. An average 8UU civilian witnesses are 
subpoenaed for preliminary hearings each month. 

The IPP subpoena-by-mail system has reduced the number of 
subpoenas requiring personal service by uniformed officers. 
IPP staff members mail an average 5UU civilian subpoenas each 
month (not all subpoenas are deemed suitable for attempted mail 
service). For those subpoenas mailed, there is an average 65% 
response rate. That is, 65% (325) of the witnesses receiving 
mailed subpoenas acknowledge receipt of the subpoena and 


confirm their willingness to appear. In doing so, they 
eliminate the need tor personal service by police officers. 

Un average, hand service by police officers requires one 
hour. Data collected over the last year reveals that an 
average of 325-4UU subpoenas are served via the IPP mail system 
each month. As a result, an average 325-400 hours are returned 
to uniformed police officers for crime prevention related tasks 
per month. 

Within the District Attorney's Office, IPP staff members 
have assumed many tasks once completed by prosecuting 
attorneys. Assumption of these tasks, largely clerical and 
witness related, has provided individual attorneys with 
additional time for case review and preparation. Preliminary 
court attorneys report a daily time savings ranging from 1-1/2 
to 3 hours. 

The IPP Project, budgeted for $111,000, employs four 

Full-time employees and one half-time employee. The positions 

consist of a project coordinator and three clerical employees. 

A description of tasks completed by IPP project staff 
nembers include the following: 

* Complete (fill-out) prosecutorial subpoenas-800 
per month. 

* Issue prosecutorial subpoenas via the mail-500 per 

* Confirm witness appearances 
- Receive telephone confirmation from 325-400 


witnesses subpoenaed by mail per month. 
Receive telephone confirmation from 100-150 
police served witnesses per month. 

* Identify and resolve problems whicli may prevent 
witness appearances. 

* Alert prosecuting attorneys to witness problems. 

* Advise police and civilian witnesses of court 
schedule changes ("call off"). Approximately 180 
witnesses are called off each month. 

* Place specified witnesses on standby status. 

* Provide civilian witnesses with employer intervention. 

* Provide civilian witnesses with witness brochures 
and necessary explanations of court procedures. 
Approximately bOO witness brochures are mailed per month 

* Provide civilian witnesses with disposition notifi- 
cation. Four Hundred disposition notification letters 
are mailed per month. 

* Arrange transportation for witnesses. 

* Arrange for court interpreters for limited and non- 
English speaking witnesses. 

Provide elderly and handicapped witnesses with 
reception, orientation and courtroom escort. 
Increasing use of word processing equipment and assignment 
one additional operator is planned. When this is initiated 
is expected that the IPP Project will centralize subpoena 
rvice in the felony preliminary courts and the misdemeanor 


:ourts. The word processiny equipment will also serve to 
generate subpoenas for police witnesses. Issuance of actual 
subpoenas to police witnesses (rather than court appearance 
lotification forms) will assure that good cause for a 
continuance exists should the officers fail to appear. 



Community United Ayainst Violence is a victim assistance 
>royram funded since September of 1981 by yrant from the 
layor's criminal Justice Council. It operates primarily in the 
fay community under tne auspices of VWAP with Diana 
iabarte-Christensen as its administrative coordinator. 

The proyram conducts research into the nature ana causes 
>f violence, operates a twenty-four hour "halt-assault" hot 

ine, provides personal and neighborhood self-protection 
>royramminy, provides public forums for the discussion of 

iolence as it impacts on the citizens of San Francisco, and 
onducts a victim assistance proyram. 



The Family Support Bureau (FSB) was established in 
January, 1976 in compliance with federal and state statutes 
equiring each county to maintain a single organization unit 
.ocated in the Office of the District Attorney. The Bureau is 
esponsible for enforcing the obliyation of parents to support 
heir cniidren and for determining paternity in the case of a 
:hild born out of wedlock. These services are provided in 
hose cases in which the child is receiving public assistance 
>r when the custodial parent requests assistance in 
istabiishing and enforcing the child support obligation. 
>ursuant to legislation enacted in 1981-1982, the Family 
Support Bureau is further charged with the responsibility of 
nforcing the spousal support obligation when such an 
>bligation has previously been established. Walter Fuchigami is 
:hief of the Family Support Bureau. 

These functions of the bureau produce revenue for San 
I'rancisco's General Fund and reduce the city's cost of 
providing welfare to families receiving public assistance. The 
? amily Support Bureau collects child and spousal support from 
ion-custodial parents when these families are receiving public 
issistance. Such collections not only reimburse San Francisco 
in direct proportion to the aid San Francisco pays, but these 
:ollections are the basis upon which Support Enforcement 
Incentive Funds (SEIF) are paid. These incentives are part of 


the revenue earned by FSB payable to the county General Fund. 
Approximately 51% of the monies collected by FSB are 
attributable to welrare collections. 

In addition to the above function, the FSB services the 
community by establishiny and enforcing support obligations on 
behalf of custodial parents who do not receive public social 
services. Approximately 49% of the revenues collected by FSB 
are for the support of these families. As a result of these 
services, families with marginal incomes are able to maintain 
themselves without receiving welfare and other families are 
able to provide more adequately for the support, education and 
maintenance of theis children. A review of the FSB computer 
records indicates that 41% of those parents receiviny 
non-welfare services by FSB were previously the recipients of 
welfare. This statistic reflects the unique contribution of 
FSB in helping custodial parents to support their children so 
that they need not rely on assistance from public welfare. 

Since the Family support Bureau is charged with the 
responsibility for enforcing support, its success is largely 
measured in terms of the dollars collected. Collections from 
1979 to 198U increased by approximately $520,000 (11.3% 
increase), and from 198U to 1981 by approximately $635,000 
(12.5% increase). Collections for the calendar year 1982 
totaled $7,830,000, an increase of 37% over calendar year 
1981. At the same time, FSB has reduced its total staff by 
approximately 10%. The institution of better procedures, 


increased departmental experience and efficiency/ and the 
ievelopment ot new collection techniques have allowed this 
>ffice to expand its revenues while reducing staff. 

The city and County of San Francisco is compensated for 
.ts collection efforts in three ways: 

1. Welfare collections reduce the local cost of Aid to 
Families With Dependent Children. In calendar year 
1982 such costs were reduced by $234,024. 

2. The Federal government reimburses the county for 70% 
of the costs of administering the collection program 
("administrative reimbursement"). Before October 1, 
1982, the rate was 75%. 

3. Federal and state programs provide a percentage bonus 
(StJIFJ based on the welfare collections produced by 
FSB. Currently the federal government returns 15% of 
the welfare monies collected by FSB from its share of 
such funds to the county general fund. The State of 
California returns 7 1/2%. 

In previous years these sources of revenue more than 
covered the entire cost of operating the Family Support 
Jureau. However, recent legislative developments have 
iecreased the FSB oudget. In 1981 the State of California, 
:acing losses of revenues of its own, eliminated its portion of 


incentive funds for July through September, 1981 and restored 
incentive funds at a much reduced level for the balance of 
fiscal year 1980-1981. Commencing October 1, 1982, the federal 
Hatching funds were reduced from 75% to 70% of FSB 
expenditures, with these losses the Family Support Bureau has 
still been aole to operate its entire mandated program while 
receiving only 1U% of its budget from county funds. 

For the calendar year 1982, the Family support Bureau 
:ollected $7,834,376; interviewed 17,510 persons; opened 6,945 
lew cases, located 1,979 absent parents; filed 2,665 support 
ictions, 1,166 paternity suits, 293 modification suits, 1,728 
reimbursement actions, and 613 reciprocal support actions. The 
:oregoing legal activity enabled the Bureau to obtain 6,524 new 
:ourt orders, including the establishment of paternity in 597 
;ases. Other court orders included the modification of current 
support orders, the establishment of orders for reimbursement 
)f welfare, establishment of reciprocal support orders, and 
>rders for the payment of costs and attorneys' fees for 
>ringing such actions, and orders preventing the discharge in 
jankruptcy of debts owed to the City and custodial parents. 
The Family Support Bureau is an invaluable asset to the 

ity and County of San Francisco. It provides essential 
services to custodial parents who cannot afford to hire 
ittorneys to collect support. The Family Support Bureau 
jstablishes the paternity of children born out of wedlock and 

t obtains reimbursement for the expenditure of welfare 


lonies. In calendar year 1979, the last year of the previous 
idministration, total revenues brought in by the Family Support 
Jureau were approximately 4.5 million dollars. In calendar 
'ear 1982, the third year of the current administration, the 
p SB Drougnt in more than 7.8 million dollars - an increase in 
:ollections of more than 73% over the oest year of the previous 
idministration. Ninety percent of the costs of all of these 
functions are derived from sources other than the city 

reasury. On January 22, 1982, the Family Support Bureau was 
singled out for commendation by the Director of the California 
)epartment of social Services for exceptional performance when 

udged against other family support divisions. 

-10 3- 


1979 198U 1981 1982 

WELFARE $2,521,261 $2,821,984 $3,055,889 $4,333,781 


MISCELLANEOUS 2,U38,81U 2,257,611 2,659,4UU $3,500,595 

TOTAL $4,560,071 $5,079,595 $ 5,714,289 $7,834,376 

-10 4- 


During tne calendar year of 1982, the Family Support 
3ureau spent $84,446 of general fund monies. For this 
expenditure, FSB recouped $4,333,781, $234,024 of which was 
retained by the city and County. This fund is not considered 
income to FSB but is money recovered as a direct result of its 
efforts. In addition, FSB recovered support for parents not 
receiving welfare in the amount of $3,501), 595. These recoveries 
illowed custodial parents with marginal incomes to remain off 
/elf are ana to provide adequate support, education and 
maintenance for their children. These support services are 
provided without charge as mandated by state and federal law. 





When I look back over the past three years of my 
administration I teel a deep sense or pride in the 
accomplishments of my staff. I am confident that all the 
citizens of our city share this feeliny and join with me in 
expressing appreciation. 

I have chosen to reserve the conclusion of this 
report to directly address the present and future needs of the 
District Attorney's Office. Success often causes on-lookers 
to conclude that nothiny is needed and that yood fortune will 
continue, whereas in reality, the achievements of the 
District Attorney's Office have been accomplished with great 
effort and personal sacrifice by all members of the staff. 
Never has there been a more clear example of this than duriny 
the past two years. Every person who worked in the District 
attorney's Office shared in a case-load yreater than expected 
in any other office reyardless of position or duty 
assiynment. The scope of this overload, the efforts made to 
correct it, and the response of our city's leaders will be 
focus of the followiny parayraphs. 

When I assumed office I was informed that althouyh my 
predecessor was permitted to over-spend his budget, that I 
tfould not be provided supplemental funds to maintain the then 


current level of staffing, and that therefore I was compelled 
to reduce personnel by ten percent. Experienced and trained 
employees were lost, and the staff that remained shouldered 
the increase burden. A small amount of additional money would 
have prevented this tragedy from happening. 

I made an analysis of resources provided to other 
District Attorneys, and learned that San Francisco provided 
less to its District Attorney's office than any other Bay Area 
county. Furthermore, the office staff was crowded into an 
area designed for one-third its number. Most office equipment 
was nearing the end of its life expectancy and should be 
replaced. For example, attorneys were placed two (and 
sometimes three) to an office, and usually shared only one 
telephone line. Often two attorneys had to interview 
different witnesses at the same time in the same office thus 
creatiny a noisy, unpleasant and distracting work situation. 
One attorney could not make a telephone call while the 
office-mate was usiny the only telephone. Secretaries' work 
areas were crowded and many used electric typewriters that 
were old and in need of repair. All employees worked in areas 
that were neither furnished nor decorated in a manner provided 
to employees charyed with similar responsibilities elsewhere. 

I submitted a request for relief to the Mayor. The 
request pointed out our needs and that San Francisco's fundiny 
of criminal prosecution is substantially below demographically 
similar counties in our area. 


The Mayor responsed to this request with the 
crime package of 1961. In essence these crime packaye funds 
merely continued positions previously paid for by federal 
revenue shariny and replaced tnose positions lost due to my 
predecessor's over-spending. This welcome assistance from the 
Mayor and the Board of supervisors was a step in the riyht 
direction; however, it did not yo far enouyh to eliminate the 
cause of the problem. The basic disparity between criminal 
arrests and prosecution resources remained, and therefore the 
problem persisted. An example of this disparity is seen in the 
followiny table: 


Tax Dollars Expended Major Offenses Peace 
County per felony prosecution per Resident Officers 


1980-81 1981-82 1980-81 1981-82 1980-81 1981-82 

Contra Costa $1,851.32 $1,258.11 1:27 1:23 21:1 

Alameda 1,376.01 1,615.65 1:22 1:20 17:1 

San Mateo 1,294.40 1,373.12 1:29 1:25 16:1 

Santa Clara 1,056.18 964.75 1:30 1:25 22:1 

San Francisco 717.14 896.45 1:13 1:14 32:1 

Dispite these burdens the jury trial performance of San 
?rancisco District Attorney's office is among the highest in 
he State. In fiscal year 1981-1982 the jury trial conviction 
:ate in san Francisco was 93%. I am confident that even higher 
rates of jury trial convictions could be achieved if the office 
fas adquately staffed. 


The duties and responsibilities of the District Attorney 
is much more numerous and extensive than the tasks of those 
engaged in the important work of criminal defense. All arrests 
nust be evaluated before filing, and necessary papers drafted 
//hen charges are filed. Pre-charging evaluations often come at 
:he conclusion of extensive investigations that require the use 
3f resources that are separate and apart from the traditional 
courtroom role. The prosecutor must prepare, summon witnesses, 
ind present the case. He must overcome the presumptions of 
.nnocence. un a given court day the District Attorney must 
ippear in every criminal case on every calendar in every 
criminal court. Tne staff of 86 attorneys authorized by the 
current budget is not sufficient to adequately meet the 
challenges presented by our present criminal justice system. 

t is my hope and expectation that our city will respond by 
providing resources and working to meet our current needs. 

our attorneys have given their time to meet their 
responsibilities to the community in other ways: they 
>articipate in public programs affecting the quality of life in 
:he community; they teach at continuing legal education 
>rograins directed towards keeping deputy district attorneys and 
lembers of the bar current on the state of the law; they serve 
>n the faculties of accredited law schools; and they serve on 

ommittees of state and local bar associations. 


During the remaining year of my first term of office I 
will focus my energy on two goals. First, I will strive to 
ootain sufficient staff and a suitable amount of work space. 
Second, I will use all resources provided to me to attempt to 
continue to provide our community with the best District 
Attorney's office in our nation. It is my hope and belief that 
viyorous trial advocacy by prosecutors who are well trained, 
well prepared, and who refuse to plea bargain violent crime, 
will briny to the citizens of our community confidence in the 
criminal justice system and a safer city. 

Please accept my deep gratitude for the opportunity to 
serve you. I have devoted my life and career as a lawyer to 
public service. It is my hope that as each day passes I will 
continue to have your confidence and that 1 will always merit 
the trust you have placed in me. 






L_ C*-o£— juuua-~~ -C J 




^ 1983-1984 








Management By Objectives Program 1 

Special Prosecutions Section 14 

Victim Witness Assistance Program 18 

Career Criminal Prosecution Program 23 

Bureau of Investigation 27 

Sexual Assault-Child Abuse Prosecution Section 30 

Misdemeanor Trial Section 35 

Homicide Prosecution Team 39 

Democratic National Convention Task Forces 44 

Mental Healtn Unit 46 

Narcotics and Vice Prosecution Section 52 

Juvenile Court Section 56 

Integrated Police Prosecution Project 60 

Arson Prosecutions Section 63 

Grand Jury 66 

Administrative Support Staff 71 

Welfare Fraud Unit 73 

Consumer and Environmental Protection Section 75 

Family Support Bureau 79 

The Family Violence Project 81 

Gang Violence Suppression Program 83 

General Felony Prosecution Section 84 

Administration 88 






880 BR"> ANT STREET. SAN FRANCISCO 94103 TEL. 14151 553-1752 


The purpose of this Annual Report is to give San 
Franciscans an insight into the efforts and achievements made by the 
staff of the San Francisco District Attorney's Office in order to 
make San Francisco a better place to reside and work. 

The first and foremost obligation of the District 
Attorney's Office is the duty to prosecute criminals and remove them 
from society. As the City's chief prosecutor, the District 
Attorney's Office must constantly meet the challenges presented by 
our criminal justice system. And, I believe that this annual report 
will illustrate the accomplishments of the District Attorney's 
Office in meeting those challenges over the past year. In addition 
to meeting the prosecutorial duties, the District Attorney's Office 
also affects the quality of life in San Francisco through programs 
such as the Family Violence Project, Victim/Witness Assistance, 
Consumer Fraud and other units chronicled within this report. 

The beginning of 1984 marked my second term as District 
Attorney and while the year had its difficult moments, the record of 
accomplishment speaks for itself. The successes noted within this 
report are the result of the dedication and hard work of a staff of 
106 attorneys, 104 investigators and a support staff of 149 men and 
women who all share a common goal with the Citizens of San 
Francisco. That goal is a safer city for all of its residents and 
those who work and visit within its boundaries. 

These strides could not be made without the cooperation of 
the San Francisco Police Department nor could they be made without 
the assistance and understanding of Mayor Dianne Feinstein and the 
Board of Supervisors. Above all, good government --be it law 
enforcement or any other branch--can not work without the support of 
the citizens it serves. 

The District Attorney's Office wishes to thank the Citizens 
of San Francisco for their trust and assistance in helping us to 
build a record of achievement and integrity. 

Very JLruly yours 

ArTo Smith 




Management by Objectives is a systematic management 
program which formalizes the establishment of objectives and 
the verification of accomplishment of these objectives. 

When implemented carefully and correctly, MBO has been 
the underlying element for high productivity management and 
work systems in both public and private enterprises. 

Based on an organizational analysis conducted in 
November and December of 1983, the District Attorney's Office 
began a MBO program with one objective being to provide the 
basis of an increasingly high-level productivity management and 
work system within the Office. Drs . Richard Babcock and Alev 
Efendioglu of the University of San Francisco joined the staff 
on a part-time basis in order to implement the MBO program 
which conforms to the parameters and requirements of the 
City-wide MBO program. 

The MBO program at the District Attorney's Office is a 
long-run developmental approach which is based on the most 
successful MBO practice in both public and private enterprises 
and on the latest developments in behavioral science and 
management theory. Because three to five years are required to 
install a comprehensive MBO program, the activities in fiscal 
1983-84 represent the first stage of a long term effort. 

In addition to the above stated objective of providing 
the basis of an increasingly high level productivity and work 

management system, the MBO program also has as an objective, 
establishment of a basis for the budgeting of resources and the 
reporting of the effective performance of legal and 
organizational processes (achievement against pre-set 
objectives) to the City and County of San Francisco. 

Selecting objectives, with the ultimate criteria being 
to deliver the highest quality legal work in every case, proved 
difficult. Goals had to be established which would fairly and 
accurately reflect accomplishment. Potentially this would be 
the establishment of targets (absolute numbers) of cases to be 
tried and win-loss percentages of those cases. However, 
targets such as these do not give a true picture of quality 
legal work. 

It is impossible to accurately anticipate the length 
and complexity of upcoming cases, and trying more cases or 
winning a higher number of trials does not mean the quality of 
legal work has improved. Cases vary in length and complexity 
and setting a conviction rate is unnecessary to assistant 
district attorneys whose goal is to obtain a conviction. 
Setting such targets may-in fact-put pressure on attorneys to 
unnecessarily settle difficult, complex and time-consuming 
cases. The San Francisco District Attorney's Office has, in 
the past, and continues at present to maintain an extremely 
high conviction rate which compares favorably to counties which 
allocate a higher percentage of their resources to District 
Attorney law enforcement and prosecution. 


The following criteria were used for selecting 
objectives: The ability to accurately forecast the future 
environment and plan for accomplishment and the ability to 
assure delivery of the highest quality legal work. Objectives 
which might impinge on the quality of the performed legal work 
or create ethical dilemmas in selecting and handling cases were 
not chosen. As a matter of fact-as defined by the California 
Bar Association - the objectives relating to the number of 
cases handled or conviction rate raise ethical issues. 

In order to assist in obtaining the objective of 
assuring the highest quality legal work, processes such" as 
issuing subpoenas or interviewing witnesses (which need to be 
carried out in every case to assist and assure delivery of the 
highest quality legal woric) were focused on in the MBO plan. 
Training objectives, public service goals and other areas also 
meet this criteria. 

To achieve the objective of providing the basis for an 
increasingly high level productivity management and work 
system, additional processes (Management by Objective and 
Organizational Development) complete the MBO package. In these 
processes which are closely related, objectives are established 
for individuals and groups. 

In the Management by Objectives process, managers set 
objectives on a quarterly basis which identify projects or 

focus on projects which will improve organizational or personal 

efficiency. Starting at top levels, managers establish 
improvement objectives and by setting of goals and verification 
of accomplishment, managers learn the MBO process as well as 
accomplishing useful projects. In succeeding time frames 
(quarters) managers at lower levels are introduced to the MBO 
process. Because this goal setting procedure is top-down and 
extended over a time period in order to allow assimilation of 
the MBO program, the immediate involvement of personnel 
throughout the office is accomplished through the supporting 
Organizational Development process. 

In the Organizational Development process, individuals 
and groups throughout the office establish and perform problem 
solving and improvement objectives. Tnrough working on these 
problems, useful projects are completed and communication 
channels are developed and opened among groups and personnel 
throughout the Office. The improvement objectives are set for 
various periods of time which correspond to the time necessary 
to complete projects. By formalizing (writing) and time dating 
objectives, the commitment for the completion of projects is 

The vehicles for capturing and transferring (as well 
as innovating) the latest theory and practices in the District 
Attorney's MBO program are two process models. By using these 
models, (which are conceptual maps or lists of future 

activities) essential developmental tasks are included and 
carried out or timed at appropriate periods. Redundant, 
dysfunctional activities also are eliminated from the MBO 
program. Specific tasks, rather than being isolated, are 
directed toward achieving specified long term objectives. 
Various activities are reinforcing (i.e., a synergistic effect) 
rather than being contradictory to or cancelling the desirable 
effects of other programs. 

The overall general model for guiding MBO 
implementation is the Babcock-Sorensen Long-run approach to MBO 
(Richard Babcock and Peter Sorensen, Jr. "A Long Run Approach 
To MBO," Management ) ♦ This model traces a series of MBO 
functions which are carried out over a number of years allowing 
the organization to assimilate and gradually integrate and 
utilize a wide range of activities. Divided into stages 
(periods of time), the performance of earlier activities 
develops the state of organizational maturity for the inclusion 
of more sophisticated techniques and practices in later time 
frames. During fiscal 1983-84 the focus of MBO activities was 
in stages I and II of the model. (Those stages include 
clarification of strategic purposes, top management goal 
setting, complete network of enterprise and manager objectives, 
informal review sessions and specific MBO training). By 
concentrating on activities listed in these stages, the 
requisite skills and motivation level has been established for 
further movement within the model. 



Based on the organizational diagnosis conducted in 
November-December 1983, while still following the thrust of the 
Babcock-Sorenson approach, modifications in the general model 
were made to fit the task requirements, history and personnel 
of the District Attorney's Office. This organizational 
diagnosis consisted of interviewing staff at all levels in the 
office, observing work flows and processes, and examining 
office documents, records and reports. So, the MBO program is 
designed to meet general theoretical considerations, but also 
to fit the specific organizational environment and culture of 
the District Attorney's Office. 

The modifications to the general model 
(Babcock-Sorensen) , as well as the rationale for these changes, 
are described in the following paragraphs. The 
Babcock-Sorensen approach calls for the establishment of a 
complete network of enterprise and manager goals. Rather than 
a complete network, the organizational diagnosis dictated the 
development of a comprehensive network of objectives which are 
written on a quarterly cycle or as needed rather than being 
written completely at one time. This way, managers can direct 
their activities to areas needing immediate attention without 
being constrained by objectives which have been set as much as 
a year ahead. Quarterly, managers select and focus on 
objectives centered on solving problems, making improvements 

and innovations which are extracurricular to the accomplishment 
of routine tasks and day-to-day activities. By not imposing a 
complexity of objectives, managers are free to respond to 
immediate demands as needs arise and are allocating portions of 
their time and efforts to problem solving and improvement 

Also, groups called "Quality Circles" composed of 
individuals from the same work unit establish objectives and 
identify improvement projects in their immediate environments. 
The District Attorney's specialized MBO program fits the 
realities and conditions facing the office and the network of 
organizational objectives which are reported to the City 
assures that re-occurring and basic processes are carried out 
in an orderly and efficient way. 

The MBO program instituted in the District Attorney's 
Office is based on the Babcock-Sorensen Long Run Theory which 
emphasizes that there is no one best way of implementing MBO, 
instead takes into account the differences in organizational 
tasks and external environments among organizations. 

Because the complexity and number of cases which will 
be brought to the District Attorney for investigation and 
prosecution cannot be accurately predicted a year in advance, 
the tasks and environment of the District Attorney's Office can 
be described as diverse and uncertain. To maintain swift 
action and insure effective and efficient management, minor 
changes were made in the MBO model to fit organizational 
realities and reflect the latest MBO theory. 



In order to address the human organization and culture 
of the Office, a second model which was based on Organizational 
Development theory and practice guided a major segment of the 
MBO process in fiscal 1983-84. By systematically focusing on 
employee concerns which inhibit productivity and act as 
negative motivating factors, the prerequisite framework was 
established for the creation of a highly motivated and 
productivity oriented work team. 

In fiscal 1983-84 the Organizational Development 
process was modeled after the preparation and development 
phases of tne OD model. A written list of validated employee 
concerns was developed tnrough interviewing and observing, 
followed by a systematic and concentrated period of problem 
solving. Development of management skills and a more efficient 
production (i.e., investigation, processing and trying cases) 
process was concurrently created through working individually 
and collectively with individuals throughout the office. These 
individuals reacted positively because top management was 
working toward removing the inhibiting or negative motivational 
factors in the work place. By creating a positive work 
environment, employees responded to genuine effort. 

In tracing the history of the San Francisco District 
Attorney's Office, the office staff has been exposed to a 
variety of managerial practices from the succession of District 
Attorneys. The office culture Arlo Smith inherited was 


developed over several decades and a succession of 
administrations. Arlo Smith, recognizing the cumulative 
effects of neglect of the human system, decided a concentrated 
approach was necessary to improve the employee motivational 
level in the office. The activities described in the 
Preparation and Development phases of the OD effort served as 
the framework for the systematic problem solving and ongoing 
organizational development efforts. Now that those phases have 
been completed, the following phases (change and continuity) 
are being integrated in the total MBO program. 

Judged against the objectives established for fiscal 
1983-84, the MBO program achieved its two stated purposes. The 
MBO reporting system of the City and County of San Francisco 
has been supplied with a comprehensive and representative 
partial listing of objectives and measures for the office. 
These objectives and measures, together with other available 
information, provide a reliable basis for budgeting and 
evaluating the effectiveness of legal and organizational 
processes, thereby achieving Objective 1 as stated. 

In addition, the basis for a productivity oriented 
management and work team has been established-thereby denoting 
accomplishment in the area. Problem areas and disappointments 
accrued during the year are summarized in the next section 
which is organized to coincide with the component 
parts/processes of the 1983-84 MBO program, namely Standards of 
Performance, Organizational Development and Management by 


The activities can be categorized into two parts: 

A. Maintaining and refining existing MBO efforts in 
office units. The Family Support and Welfare 
Fraud Units were already participating in the 
City and County MBO reporting system, so a 
major effort was not undertaken in those units. 
Major changes if, needed after analysis 

were deferred to the next year (fiscal 1984-85) 
which will allow integration with the overall 
Office Management by Objectives Program. 1 

B. Extending the MBO efforts throughout the Office. 
The priority in fiscal 1983-84 was to develop, 
report and utilize objectives and measures for 
Organizational Units throughout the office. 
There are now objectives and measures which 
relate to all major legal and organizational 
processes. Specifically, in fiscal 1983-84 
eighteen additional objectives and associated 
numerical measures were written and reported to 
the City and County of San Francisco. Twelve of 
the eighteen newly established objectives were 
achieved while performance against four other 
objectives came close to meeting the performance 
criteria. In the remaining two areas (the 
issuance of subpoenas and advocacy for victims 


and witnesses), tne regular collection of data 
highlighted problem areas which are now being 
addressed. The regular monitoring of legal and 
office processes for the 18 identified objectives 
helped assure a high level of efficiency. This 
part of the MBO program provided a basis for 
identifying areas for office improvement as well 
as supplying information to the City and County 
MBO Reporting System. 
The major problem area in setting numerical objectives 
and measures was the inability to generate accurate statistics 
to verify the accomplishment of objectives. Presently 
available computer programs could not generate all of the 
needed information and hand tabulation added unnecessarily to 
the cost of legal and office efficiency. 

The Organizational Development process of the MBO 
program, which in fiscal 1983-84 was remedial and 
developmental, was necessary because forced budget cuts and a 
ten percent personnel reduction had been mandated in 1980. The 
Organizational Development process consisted of two supporting 
parts: A. An Office Wide Campaign and B. Quality Circles. 

A. The Office Wide Campaign. An organized effort was 
carried out to respond to legitimate and valid employee 
concerns through a concentrated effort. Eighty legitimate 
employee concerns were identified; and while attention to some 


concerns was not possible, some 61 improvement projects were 
undertaken. The net result of this campaign is an improved 
working environment; but, inadequate financial resources, 
technological constraints, lack of authority to make changes 
and space limitations made it impossible to respond to some 
valid employee concerns. Continuing efforts are being made to 
bring the work place up to the standards of a professional 
legal office. 

B. Quality Circles. In fiscal 1983-84 four Quality 
Circle groups worked effectively on making improvements on 
their immediate work environments. Improvements included 
streamlining office procedures, identifying equipment needs, 
and rearranging office space. The improvement projects were 
achieved by and large without additional budgets and thereby 
resulted in improved office efficiency at no additional cost. 
The experience with Quality Circles demonstrated that they are 
an effective means of communication among personnel and top 

The Management by Objectives process for fiscal 
1983-84 included only the top two organizational levels. By 
confirming the MBO process to these levels (i.e., supplemental 
Organizational Development included personnel throughout the 
office), a solid foundation was established for future 
implementation activities. Changes and improvements are being 
gradually introduced so new practices are successfully 
assimilated into the office culture. 


Trie major activities of the MBO process in fiscal 
1983-84 are listed as follows: 

A. Top management decided to adopt a 
consultative-participative approach in order to achieve a 
consistent overall management system throughout the office. 

B. District Attorney Arlo Smith and Chief Assistant 
District Attorney Robert Podesta established objectives on a 
quarterly basis starting in January and demonstrated full 
support for the MBO program by direct participation. 

C. Managers at the next highest level established 
their initial MBO objectives in May of 1984. 

D. MBO training was developed and carried out. Tnis 
training being consistent with and utilizing the Transamerican 
training program, is sponsored by the Civil Service Commission 
Training Unit and funded by Central Management Training Fund. 
The managers in this Office are systematically participating in 
this program. 

The MBO program has achieved its objectives in fiscal 
1983-84. Objectives have been identified and set which 
provided a partial basis for budgetary allocations and judging 
office efficiency. Additionally, the systematic development 
and refinement of a professional and high level 
productivity-oriented work team is on schedule. 



The Special Prosecutions Section is a unit of the San 
Francisco District Attorney's Office with investigative 
resources and skilled attorneys capable of providing thorough 
prosecution of white collar crimes. As a part of the Mayor's 
Crime Prevention Program, this Section handles crimes which 
have a high degree of sophistication and complexity including 
white collar crimes and government corruption. 

The section which is headed by Assistant District 
Attorney Peter Aviles deals with a unique sort of crime -- one 
in which the criminal has concealment of the crime as t-tie main 
priority. A great deal of investigative time and resources are 
required to take these cases from arrest to conviction. Unlike 
traditional prosecution units which handle a large volume of 
cases, the Special Prosecutions Section must necessarily 
concentrate its resources on a relatively small number of 
complex cases. 

Out of some 76 cases handled by the Special 
Prosecutions Unit within the past fiscal year, thirteen of them 
were intricate and complicated enough to warrant more than five 
months of attorney time. 

The following are descriptions of some of the major 
cases prosecuted by the District Attorney's Special 
Prosecutions Section within the past year. 


INSURANCE FRAUD (PEOPLE VS. ALSAEDI) . Eighteen defendants were 
charged with conspiracy to commit fraud and grand theft. The 
defendants staged eight simulated traffic accidents in 1980 and 
1981. Three of the simulated incidents occurred in San 
Francisco and the remainder in surrounding counties. All eight 
incidents involved acts of furtherance (such as hospitalization 
or mailing of claims) which occurred in San Francisco, hence 
the prosecution of all eight incidents by the San Francisco 
District Attorney's Office. 

The typical "accident" occurred when tne defendant's 
car, with four occupants, was run off the road by an 
unidentified vehicle in some remote area. The defendants 
complained of invisible injuries such as back pain and nausea. 
They would claim to be unable to care for themselves at home 
and would be admitted to hospitals. Then they would then file 
multiple insurance claims. A total of twenty-five insurance or 
health plan carriers paid claims to the defendants. 

The case was investigated by the District Attorney's 
Special Prosecutions Section and the California Highway Patrol 
and was co-prosecuted with the Office of the Attorney General. 
These combined law enforcement and criminal justice efforts 
produced six search warrants, numerous subpoenas and yielded 
more than 15,000 pages of documentary evidence. 

Convictions have been obtained in six cases, (five 
felonies and one misdemeanor) and more than $50,000 in 


restitution has been ordered. One of the cases is currently 
pending preliminary hearing. There are warrants for the arrest 
of several defendants who fled outstanding. 

More than 300 investors -- many retired, disabled or 
people on low fixed incomes -- lost a total of $6.5 million in 
an investment scheme perpetrated by officers and sales agents 
of Commercial Western Finance, a Montgomery Street Company. A 
two year investigation, completed in conjunction with the 
Department of Corporations resulted in guilty pleas by the 
President and the Chairman of the Board. Both received' terms 
in state prison. Sales personnel pleaded guilty and were 
granted probation. The Vice President and corporate attorney 
were convicted after a three week jury trial and were sentenced 
to state prison. Restitution to the victims of the investment 
scheme is now being determined by the Federal Bankruptcy Court. 

In July of 1981 a San Francisco Police Officer and a 
San Francisco Deputy Sheriff were arrested by San Francisco 
Police Department narcotics investigators who executed a search 
warrant on their residence. Their investigation had revealed 
that the police officer and deputy sheriff were involved with 
large scale Latin American cocaine dealers, but only a small 
quantity of drugs were found. The investigation also disclosed 
that the police officer's partner on patrol duty at Southern 
Police Station, a veteran police officer, was also involved in 
the case. 


In July of 1984, undercover police narcotics officers 
purchased cocaine from a man who told them not to fear the 
police because his "connection" or source was a San Francisco 
Police Officer who had friends "high up" in the San Francisco 
Police Department. 

The man who sold the undercover police officers the 
cocaine was arrested and agreed to cooperate with the 
investigation and prosecution of his "connection"--the police 
officer. Recording equipment was installed in the seller's 
home by the police. Tne veteran of f icer--while on duty, in a 
police uniform and in a San Francisco Police Department- patrol 
car, visited the cocaine seller's residence to pick up the 
proceeds of the cocaine sales and to arrange additional cocaine 
transactions. The conversations were recorded and the veteran 
officer was arrested when he left the residence with the money. 

The cocaine seller pled guilty to a felony count of 
selling cocaine in violation of Health and Safety Code Section 
11352, and has agreed to testify against the veteran police 
officer who was his connection. 

Investigations into narcotics trafficking within the 
San Francisco Police Department by the District Attorney's 
Special Prosecutions Unit in conjunction with the police 
department are continuing. 

The case of the People vs. Charlie Walker (SC//107755) 
began with a Grand Jury indictment in April of 1982 on 26 
felony violations of extortion, theft, perjury, tax evasion, 


falsification of corporate records and forgery. The 
post-indictment preliminary hearing lasted three weeks, ending 
in June of 1983. The trial ended on June 4, 1984 and resulted 
in conviction on 24 felonies. During the trial, the Court 
heard from 75 witnesses and viewed 113 collective exhibits. 
Walker was sentenced to six years in state prison. 

The case, from the beginning of the Grand Jury 
investigation until the sentencing, took just short of three 
years to prosecute. More than 100 witnesses testified, either 
before the Grand Jury, the magistrate at the preliminary 
hearing or at the trial. Some witnesses testified as many as 
six times. Ten boxes of documentary evidence were collected, 
and more than 10,000 pages of transcript generated. 

The indictment of Walker grew out of an investigation 
into allegations of corruption in the U.S. Post Office 
construction project in the India Basin area of San Francisco. 
In addition to the indictment of Charlie Walker, the Grand Jury 
also issued a twelve page report (the first in recent memory by 
a criminal grand jury of this jurisdiction), centering on 
perceived abuses of the Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) 
Program on the Post Office project and including two pages of 
recommendations for improving the monitoring and control of 
such programs. 

The Victim Witness Assistance Program is located 
within the main offices of the District Attorney in the Hall of 


Justice and also has several satellite locations. The 
Executive Director is Anne Daley who is responsible for fiscal 
management, project operation, supervision of staff and 
subordinate programs. A policy board sets guidelines for the 
program's operation. 

The program was established to assist victims of crime 
in obtaining compensation for their injuries and losses, and to 
assist them when they are summoned to testify in court. The 
program also reassures the public of the need for witnesses to 
appear and of the relative safety in participating as a witness 
to insure that guilty persons are brought before the co'urt. 
Tne scope of the Victim Witness Assistance Program is evidenced 
in tne gollowing table of client services: 

Victim Witness Unit 

July 1, 1983 - June 30, 1984 

Total Clients Served: 3,896 

1) State Board of Control Claims: 

Filed: 217 
Settled: 131 

Paid to Victims: $326,613.86 

Denials: 7 

Average claim settlement: $2,493.99 

Both compensation and administrative expenses are paid 
by the State with nearly twice as much received to compensate 

victims financial losses as was expended for office 


operations. This year the cost per victim applying for 
reimbursement advice or other assistance averaged $114.05. 

In addition to assisting victim-claimants in seeking 
indemnity from the State, the Victim Witness Assistance Program 
also introduces many clients to a variety of community agencies 
from which they can gain necessary aid. Although the majority 
of violent crime victims seeking indemnity from the State are 
between 18 and 40 years old, elderly clients require the 
greatest variety of direct personal services. Tne program 
provides language translation, criminal justice information, 
counseling and crisis intervention. It also offers referrals 
for medical, psychological and physical assistance and shelter 
for victims of abuse and intimidation. Court escorts and 
witness transportation are daily functions of the program. 
Obtaining legal assistance, making funeral arrangements and 
solving a myriad of assorted problems were handled as shown 

Individual Victim Services 
Creditor Intervention 399 

Crisis Intervention 623 

Emergency Assistance 680 

Follow-up Counselisng 1552 

Funeral Assistance 24 

Property Return Assistance 347 

Restitution Assistance 845 


TRO Assistance 165 

WC Assistance 1111 

Transportation 159 

Court Assistance 543 

Court Support 157 

Employer Intervention 32 

Temporary Living Cost 88 

Orientation to CJS 2465 

Protective Services 214 

Referral to CJS agencies 3207 

Referral to otner agencies 929 ' 

Translation 657 

Case Status/Info 592 

Case Disp. 1446 

Forms Assistance 750 

Crime Prevention Information 538 

Other programs, operating in the same criminal justice 
area and sharing common concerns, are linked to the District 
Attorney's Office under the Victim Witness Assistance 
umbrella. The Family Violence Project dealing with domestic 
violence derives its administrative costs from the City but has 
produced much of its exemplary record with the aid of private 
grants for its nationally recognized innovative projects. 


The Integrated Police Prosecution Program, implemented 
to coordinate witness court appearances from subpoena to final 
case disposition, works closely with the Victim Witness 
Assistance Program to reassure witnesses of their safety. 

Community United Against Violence, formerly a 
volunteer agency but City funded since 1981, has an excellent 
record for service not only to the gay community but also 
increasingly to the whole city of San Francisco. 

Community United Against Violence is a victim 
assistance program funded since September of 1981 by a -grant 
from tne Mayor's Criminal Justice Council. It operates 
primarily in the gay community under the auspices of the 
District Attorney's Victim Witness Assistance Program with 
Diana Zabarte-Christensen as its Administrative Coordinator. 

The program conducts research into the nature and 
causes of violence, operates a twenty-four hour "halt-assault" 
hot line; provides public forums for the discussion of violence 
as it impacts on the citizens of San Francisco; trains, 
monitors and works with the San Francisco Police Department to 
keep parades, rallies and demonstrations orderly; and conducts 
a victim witness assistance program. 




Trie Career Criminal Program directs priority 
prosecution toward the repeat offender. Premised on the fact 
that a small group of criminals are responsible for an 
inordinate amount of crime, this program directs special, 
intensive efforts toward the identification and prosecution of 
the career criminal (repeat offender) to produce a greater 
number of convictions and state prison commitments, longer 
periods of incarceration and ultimately greater protection of 
the public from the repeat offender. 

Repeat offenders continually victimize society because 
they have either successfully escaped prosecution in the past 
or have been repeat failures of the criminal justice system's 
efforts toward their rehabilitation. Tne Career Criminal 
Program was established to focus on ttiis intractable aspect of 
crime--tne problem of the recidivist. 

The Career Criminal Prosecution Program's stated 
objectives are: 

1. Identification of persons who repeatedly commit the 
crimes of robbery, burglary and other, specific 
theft offenses. 

2. Swift prosecution of these repeat offenders. 

3. Conviction and imposition of substantial prison 
terms for these Career Criminals. 

In pursuit of these objectives, certain performance 
goals have been instituted. Tnese "goals" tend to work as a 


monitor of the program and contribute to accomplishing the 
stated objectives. 

Performance goals include maintaining a reduced case 
volume, assignment of cases to experienced prosecutors on a 
vertical prosecution basis, securing high bail, and application 
of penalty enhancements (thereby increasing maximum penalty). 
The cornerstone of these goals is the reduced caseload. It 
promotes the vertical prosecution concept, by experienced 
prosecutors which accounts for the program's success. During 
fiscal. 1983-84, tnis unit accomplished an overall 93 percent 
conviction rate. - 

Consistent with the instituted Management by Objective 
Program, the Career Criminal Prosecution Program is involved 
with establishing additional objectives and goals as a basis 
for further monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of 
legal and organizational processes within the program. 

The following page of statistics illustrate the 
specifics of this program during the fiscal year 1983-84. 





FY 1982/83 FY 1983/84 
Defendants accepted for the 

Career Criminal Program 225 223 

Active cases* at end of year 107 54 

Cases closed during year 145 176 

Defendants Dismissed 17 14 

a. Victim unavailable 1 

b. Alibi verified 

c. Lack of positive 


d. 1538.5 (evidence 


e. By the Court 1 2 

f. Defendant in State 
Prison on otiier 


g. No material witness 4 7 
h. Insufficient Evidence 11 5 

Defendants convicted 187 195 

a. Pleas of guilty 154 159 

b. Jury trial 23 36 

c. Probation revocations 9 

d. Death penalty 1 
State Prison Commitments 144 172 



FY 1982/83 FY 1983/84 

County Jail Commitments 26 15 

Prison Evaluations 2 2 

Conviction Rate at Trial for fiscal year 1983-84 was 84 percent 
Overall conviction rate for fiscal year 1983-84 was 93 percent. 

* Cases may, in some instances, include more than a single 
defendant . 



The District Attorney's Bureau of Investigation 
conducts investigations into welfare fraud, official 
corruption, white collar crime, consumer fraud and other 
criminal matters. The Bureau has a staff of 42 investigators, 
3 process servers and one secretary all of whom report to the 
Chief Investigator John E. Majka. Majka, a five year veteran 
with the District Attorney's Investigations Unit, replaced Jack 
Cleary who retired in August of 1984, 28 years after joining 
the City's law enforcement system. 

Seventeen investigators are assigned to tne Criminal 
Division; eight to the Welfare Fraud Section; seven to the 
Special Prosecutions Section; four to the Consumer Fraud 
Section; two to the Career Criminal Program; two to the 
Juvenile Division and one to the Psychiatric Court Section. 

Investigators assigned to the Criminal Division 
conduct investigations as requested by trial attorneys and 
prepare evidence sucli as diagrams of crime scenes and 
photographic displays. The unit is also increasing its work 
with other District Attorney and Police units in exploring new 
applications of video technology for use in trials. 
Audio/video recordings are also provided by the Bureau of 
Investigation for use in attorney training sessions. 


Four investigators are assigned to provide full-time 
assistance to the attorneys in the felony preliminary hearing 
courts. They locate missing witnesses, conduct follow-up 
investigations, provide witness transportation and witness 
protective services. 

The three full time process servers in the Bureau of 
Investigations have served more than 1000 subpoenas and related 

The investigators in the Special Prosecutions section 
investigate matters of extreme sensitivity and complexity 
involving organized crime, corruption and major criminal 

Investigators in the Career Criminal section remain 
assigned to individual cases through termination of court 
proceedings in order to focus prosecutorial efforts on habitual 
offenders and result in increased penalties at the time of 
sentencing . 

District Attorney's Investigators are also assigned to 
undercover work and immediately respond to all incidents 
involving a shooting by or of a police officer in order to 
compile independent findings. Within the past fiscal year, the 
District Attorney's Bureau of Investigations has been requested 
by the San Francisco Police Department to provide assistance in 
numerous departmental investigations. 




1980 1981 1982 1983 

INVESTIGATIONS 785 1348 3064 4156 

Special Assignments 89 121 112 137 

Matters Assigned to Outside 

Agencies 12 51 64 98 

Assistance Provided to Outside 


Police Shooting Investigations 

On View Arrests 

Arrest Warrants 

Search Warrants 

Conditional Examinations Video 

and Audio 

Witness Assistance, Pick-up 
and Protection 

Special Services, Diagrams, 

Charts, ets. 

Background Checks 

Subpoena Service 











































A case which began when the District Attorney's Office 
pressed charges against the two child molesters in December of 
1982, ended with a San Francisco jury finding both defendants 
guilty. During the first half of 1984, sentences were handed 
down. In January one defendant was sentenced by Superior Court 
Judge Robert Dossee to 527 years in prison and in July the 
second defendant was sentenced to 208 years in prison - in both 
cases for their parts in the kidnap and sexual molestation of a 
two-and-a-half year old girl and the sexual molestation of an 
11 year old Vietnamese boy. 

The trial which began in San Francisco Superior Court 
on October 24, 1983, was one of the most sordid child 
molestation cases in San Francisco history. It drew 
nation-wide attention to the horrors of child abuse. 

The San Francisco District Attorney's Office charged 
the defendants with more than 150 felonies including 
kidnapping, lewd and lascivious conduct with a child; 
conspiracy and false imprisonment. After two weeks of 
deliberations, the jury handed down nearly 200 guilty verdicts 
ensuring the fact that the defendants would be given the 
longest prison sentences in California history. 

The 527 year sentence is not only the longest ever 
given a child molester with no previous criminal history, it is 
the longest sentence of any kind in California history. 


Under California law, this child molester does not become 
eligible for parole until 2247 - - 262 years from now. 

The District Attorney's Sexual Assault Unit, which 
handles child abuse prosecution as well as sexual assault cases 
against adults, also successfully prosecuted the case of the 
Nob Hill rapist, obtaining a 65-year prison sentence. 
Assistant District Attorney Peter Cling who prosecuted the Nob 
Hill rapist case was named head of the Unit at the beginning of 
1984 replacing Judith Whitmer, who is now a Municipal Court 
Judge in San Mateo County. 

Additional City funding enabled the sexual assault 
unit to handle the growing number of cases involving both 
sexual and physical abuse of children. Cases involving the 
mistreatment of children are on the rise. 

There are currently four attorneys in the Sexual 
Assault-Child Abuse Prosecution Section. Whenever possible, 
the vertical prosecution system is used. One of the section's 
attorneys is assigned to each case prosecuted and continues 
with that case until final disposition. The assigned attorney 
handles all motions, hearings and trials for the particular 
case. This procedure is designed to minimize the emotional 
trauma experienced by the victim during the prosecution and to 
ensure thorough case preparation and presentation. This system 
of prosecution saves the victim from having to report the facts 
of their case to a different attorney each time he or she comes 
to court. It also reassures the victim tnat there is someone 

« within the criminal 

justice system who has full and thorough knowledge of their 

The vertical prosecution system, has a clear advantage 
of service to the victim; decreases the amount of time which 
the case takes to reach trial and allows closer collaboration 
between various law enforcement and victim services agencies. 

Members of the District Attorney's Sexual 
Assault-Child Abuse Prosecution Section routinely discuss cases 
with the staff of the Department of Health's Sexual Trauma Unit 
(adult victims), the Chi ld/Alolescent Sexual Abuse Resource 
Center (juvenile victims) as well as the Department of ^Social 
Services. Members also participate in staff training of the 
related agencies. Currently, the Assistant District Attorneys 
in the unit hold positions on tne Cnild Sexual Trauma Advisory 
Committee to the Mayor, tne Child Abuse Council, and the 
R.A.P.E. subcommittee of the Commission on the Status of Women. 

Tne Section's responsibilities include juvenile court 
dependency representation of minors who have been criminally 
abused or neglected by their parents (Section 351, Welfare and 
Institutions Code). The District Attorney's Office is in the 
unique position of being able to provide the juvenile court 
with information regarding the progress of cases in criminal 
court and the court is able to reciprocate, thus facilitating 
the coordinated handling of each case. 



Representation of minors by this section also 
encourages early disposition in related criminal matters where 
adequate controls over the family are imposed by the juvenile 
court. And since criminal convictions for child abuse are 
admissible in juvenile dependency cases, such convictions can 
greatly shorten juvenile court proceedings. This new role for 
the unit, while it greatly increases the work load of the team, 
ultimately results in cost reduction to the City by eliminating 
duplicate litigation in tne criminal and juvenile courts. 

The Sexual Assault-Child Abuse Prosecution Section 
within the District Attorney's Office is an extremely : 
specialized team, each member is aware that psychological 
problems involved in sex crimes prosecution can be as critical 
as the legal issues. Victims of Sex crimes are assigned a 
single Assistant District Attorney at their time of arrival in 
the Complaint room so that in the complex criminal justice 
system, one person will not only understand the legal problems 
germain to their case but also so that one person will 
understand their trauma. 

The 1983-84 section tried 31 jury trials (June 30, 
1983 to July 1, 1984). Two cases are summarized as follows to 
show the variety of cases tried from the case of the two child 
molesters to the case of Nob Hill rapist: 

The benefits of vertical representation were 

demonstrated in this case which was handled from beginning to 


end by an attorney assigned to the Sexual Assault Child Abuse 
Prosecution Unit. The People V. Gibson case involved the 
sexual molestation of a seven year old girl who, at trial, was 
the only witness to identify the perpetrator. The ability of 
the prosecuting attorney to work with and thoroughly prepare 
the victim throughout all stages of the proceedings resulted in 
a conviction and a nine year prison sentence. 


In this case a prostitute in San Francisco was enticed 
into the defendant's automobile and kidnapped. While enroute 
to Sacramento, the defendants alternately forced the victim to 
engage in various sexual acts. Despite problems inherent in 
the case due to the nature of the victim, the ability of the 
Sexual Assault Unit to work closely and constantly with the 
victim in preparing for the preliminary hearing and trial 
resulted in convictions on all charges and prison sentences of 
56 and 35 years. 




The Misdemeanor Trial Section of the District 
Attorney's Office, supervised by Assistant District Attorney 
Candace J. Heisler, prosecutes offenses classified by law as 
less serious than felonious conduct. Petty theft, driving 
under the influence, assault, battery, prostitution and drug 
abuse are among the crimes classified as misdemeanors. 
Offenses such as assault with a deadly weapon, burglary and 
possession of a loaded or concealed gun may be classified as 
felonies or as misdemeanors depending on the facts and the 
defendant's criminal history. When classified as misdemeanors, 
the Misdemeanor Trial Section prosecutes these cases. 

While misdemeanor crime usually does not generate the 
front page headlines or the public concern of a felony crime, 
misdemeanors are much more likely to touch the lives of Bay 
Area residents. In fiscal year 1983-84, more than 82,000 
misdemeanor arrests were made in San Francisco. Each incident 
was evaluated by the experienced trial attorneys who comprise 
the Misdemeanor Intake Team. The Intake Unit makes the 
determination whether or not to file a complaint after 
evaluating the suspect's prior criminal history, the strength 
of the evidence, the magnitude of the crime, the availability 
of witnesses, the victim's desire to seek prosecution and 
cooperate in the proceedings, and the other interests of 



Misdemeanor Intake also receive and consider numerous 
arrest warrant requests and issue more than 800 warrants in 
fiscal year 1983-84. In each case the attorneys reviewed the 
evidence presented by the police inspector or government agency 
investigator. This detailed intake screening process resulted 
in an average of 8,200 misdemeanor cases per month. 

The Misdemeanor Trial Section's careful selection, 
investigation and preparation of cases taken to trial resulted 
in an unprecedented 76 percent conviction rate for fiscal year 

Because the volume of arrests is greater than -the 
capacity of tne 10 to 12 trial deputies assigned to the Unit, 
the District Attorney's Office has focused its efforts on 
prosecution of the most serious and dangerous misdemeanor 
offenses, especially those involving violence, the use or 
possession of deadly weapons, and driving under the influence 
of alcohol or drugs. Street violence offenses, that is, 
assaults in public places by strangers have been specially 
investigated, and monitored since March 1st of 1984. Street 
violence cases filed since that date have resulted in an 89 
percent conviction rate. The misdemeanor jail sentences 
averaged more than 45 days. 

Driving under the influence offenses continued to 
receive high priority in fiscal year 1983-84. A 97 percent 


conviction rate for drunk driving related offenses was achieved 
by the Misdemeanor Trial Unit during the 1983-84 fiscal year. 
Repeat offenders were sentenced to long jail terms. In one 
case, People v. Joyce Peterson , for example, the defendant 
committed three "driving while under the influence" offenses 
within one month. Following a two week jury trial, the 
defendant received the maximum possible sentence: three years 
and two months in the county jail. 

In April, 1984, a Special Team was established to 
handle tne anticipated arrests of violent protesters during the 
July 1984 Democratic National Convention. Although the vast 
majority of demonstrations were peaceful, a series of 
demonstrations beginning in April of 1934 and extending 
throughout the Convention resulted in the filing of 423 cases 
against unruly and wilfully obstructionist protesters. By 
November 1, 1984, the majority of the cases were resolved with 
a conviction rate of 81 percent. This success was due to the 
efforts of the three experienced Assistant District Attorneys 
assigned to those cases. 

Overall, the majority of misdemeanor defendants 
eventually pled guilty, although more than 8,500 pretrial 
disposition conferences and 5,400 failure to appear hearings 
preceded such pleas. In addition, two assistant district 
attorneys prepared and handled more than 4,500 motions in the 

fiscal year 1983-84. These included evidentiary motions to 
suppress evidence and to revoke probation. The Writs and 



Appeals Unit staffed by one attorney, researched, wrote and 
argued more than 100 appeals and motions. 

The nature of misdemeanor offenses varies from 
annoying to life-threatening conduct. The following jury 
trials, all conducted during the fiscal year, serve to 
illustrate the diversity of misdemeanor trial practice: 

The jury in People v. Johnnie Mae Martin found the 
defendant guilty of threatening the life of California Assembly 
Speaker Willie L. Brown, Jr. Witn the apparent ability and 
intent to kill Assemblyman Brown, the defendant entered 
Assemblyman Brown's San Francisco office on February 22, 1984, 
carrying a .357 magnum handgun and ammunition in her purse. As 
recommended by the District Attorney's Office, the defendant 
received one year jail sentence the maximum possible. 

People v. Tnomas W. Stevens, et al (also known as the "White 
Panther" cases) resulted in four defendants each being 
sentenced to at least one year county jail terms. Even after 
partial sentence suspensions by the court, the resulting jail 
commitments ranged from three to eighteen months. A fifth 
defendant fled. The charges of battery, false imprisonment and 
illegal possession of a loaded firearm were sustained and the 
defendants' unsuccessful attempts to characterize the 
prosecution as merely "political" in nature were rejected by 
the jury. 



Thomas Jefferson said: "The care of human life and 
happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only 
legitimate object of good government". Because it means an end 
to life, homicide is the crime taken most seriously by the 
prosecutors in the District Attorney's Office. 

The team of experienced lawyers assigned to prosecute 
homicide cases exclusively are aided by other expert staff 
attorneys when the homicide caseload requires additional 
assistance. The gravity and complexity of homicide cases 
together with numerous pre-trial motions filed by the : 
defendants place great demands on attorney time. Each homicide 
requires an exhaustive and painstaking investigation. 

Tne trials resulting from homicide cases are usually 
longer than other felonies and contain a wider range of 
issues. Furthermore, these cases do not end at the time 
sentence is pronounced. Defendants found insane may request a 
jury trial each year to litigate whether their sanity has been 
restored and defendants committed to prison for life terms 
(first and second degree murder) are entitled to annual 
hearings before the Board of Prison Terms when they become 
eligible for parole. 

Assistant District Attorney Eugene Sweeters is in 
charge of the Homicide Prosecution Section. During the fiscal 

year 1983-84, sixty six homicide cases were prosecuted to 



conclusion by the Homicide Prosecution Section. The following 
cases prosecuted during the fiscal year 1983-84 demonstrate the 
wide variety and sometimes very unusual fact situations that 
occur in cases handled by the homicide section: 

Michael "Bear" Carson, 31, and his wife, Suzan Carson, 
39, were charged witn the murder of Keryn Barnes a 23-year-old 
single woman who had befriended them and allowed the two to 
reside with her in her modest Haight Ashbury apartment early in 
1981. The Carsons regarded themselves as yogis and 
practitioners of the Hindu philosophy of Yoga, possessing 
certain supernatural powers. Tney were also users of marijuana 
and psychedelic drugs. Shortly after they began living with 
Keryn Barnes they developed a notion tnat the latter was a 
witch, and more specifically, a psychic vampire who had decided 
to seriously harm Suzan Carson in a manner allegedly common to 
black witchcraft. 

On the night of March 7, 1981, after Keryn Barnes had 
gone to sleep, Michael Carson--counseled by his 
wife--bludgeoned the sleeping victim in the head with a cast 
iron frying pan fracturing her skull and stabbed her in the 
neck many times with a kitchen knife. Tne Carsons then 
gathered their belongings and fled from the Bay area. They 
were arrested in Sonoma County for a murder allegedly committed 
in that area. A statement was given by the Carsons in regard 
to the killing of Keryn Barnes wherein they attributed 


psychic assault by the latter as justification for their 


At their jury trial for tne murder of Keryn Barnes, 

among the many witnesses called, over prosecution objections 

were a self-styled witch and two para-psychologists to testify 

about validity of witchcraft and supernatural powers. Chief 

Trial Attorney Tnomas Norman prosecuted the case. The jury 

rejected the defense and returned verdicts confirming the 

prosecutor's charges. Each defendant was convicted of murder 

in the first degree and each was sentenced to twenty-five years 

to life in the State Prison. - 



On June 8, 1983, a man was shot to death in his Gough 
Street apartment. Many items of narcotic paraphernalia were 
found at the scene of the murder. Witnesses saw three people 
leaving the building, --a large man, a smaller man and a young 
woman. Around the corner on Market Street, Kirk Atwood, 
entered a bar and requested an ambulance be called. He was 
bleeding profusely from his hand. A trail of blood led back to 
the murdered man's apartment. Atwood told police he was shot 
by a large man coming out of the Gough Street apartment. 

An intense police investigation began. Relying on 
informants from the criminal underworld, homicide detectives 
learned that the woman seen leaving the scene was named Karol 


Kress and that she had an extensive criminal history. Kress 
was located on a marijuana plantation in Mendocino County and 
agreed to testify against the gun-man, Warren Wells, and his 
accomplice, Kirk Atwood who was accidentally shot by Wells 
during a bungled robbery attempt of the victim. 

After a three week trial which included the testimony 
of a convicted killer, to whom Wells had admitted the shooting 
while they were in jail, as well as the testimony of a Hells 
Angel incarcerated for armed robbery who was called by the 
defense, the jury convicted both Wells and Atwood of first 
degree murder. Tney were given life sentences in State Prison. 

Shirley Dambouradj ian, ex-wife of the defendant, was 
shot to deatn. She had been bludgeoned about the head and shot 
fourteen times. Because the victim had been shot in Sahag 
Dambouradj ian ' s apartment and because he admitted to the 
killing, this was not a case of "who done it?" 

The sheer amount of violence and obvious overkill led 
to a combined defense of rage, i.e. manslaughter, blackout and 
general lack of cognition, and/or self defense. The defendant 
and psychiatrists testified that he had been physically and 
emotionally bothered by his ex-wife. Such a defense was 
contrary to evidence presented by the District Attorney's 

In rebuttal, the People presented the testimony of Dr. 
Daniel Sorkin, a Ph.D. who is an expert in the field of spousal 


abuse. He had been previously retained to represent the victim 
in her past divorce action. Dr. Sorkin had--in fact--concluded 
that Mrs. Dambouradj ian had been a battered wife and he 
testified to his findings. 

Sahag Dambouradj ian was convicted of murder in the 
first degree with the use of a fire-arm. He was sentenced to 
twenty-seven years to life in State Prison. 



In February of 1984, the San Francisco District 
Attorney's Office began intensive planning for the Democratic 
National Convention. A Consumer Protection Task Force was 
formed together with the Mayor's Office, the Police Department, 
the State Attorney General's Office, the San Francisco 
Convention and Visitors Bureau, the Chamber of Commerce, the 
Better Business Bureau, the American Society of Travel Agents, 
the Fisherman's V/harf Mercnants Association and Democratic 
National Convention. The Task Force, under the guidance of the 
Consumer Fraud Unit, sought to lessen the actual number of law 
enforcement problems at convention time through educational 
programs, the posting and publication of crime prevention tips 
and the use of public service announcements to warn victims of 
the potential problems and to warn criminals of the 

As the convention in Moscone Center drew near, the 
District Attorney's Office established a Democratic Convention 
Demonstration Team in June to deploy its lawyers and 
investigators for 24-hour duty throughout the convention. 
Assistant District Attorneys Clothilde Hewlett and Adrian 
Ivancevich were in charge of the specialized team which handled 
the convention arrests which resulted in more than 400 
additional cases. Attorneys, investigators and support staff 
showed their dedication to the criminal justice system--above 


and beyond the call of duty-to ensure a coordinated law 
enforcement effort during a month of extraordinary events. 

The Democratic National Convention went very 
smoothly--a credit to the City - and the practical knowledge 
gained by the experience of this past year's convention influx 
will be put to good use for years to come. 



The Mental Health Unit handles cases concerning 
allegations that a person is gravely disabled as a result of 
mental disorder or impairment caused by chronic alcoholism or 
that the person is a danger to himself or others. The unit 
presents such cases in Superior Court. Assistant District 
Attorney Mercedes U. Moreno is in charge of the unit. 

Cases handled by the Mental Health Unit fall into the 
following categories: 

1. Conservatorships for mentally disordered persons. 

2. Petitions for postcertif ication treatment "of 
dangerous persons. 

3. Petitions for commitment and treatment of 
developmentally disabled persons who are 
dangerous to themselves or others. 

4. Writs of Habeas Corpus. 

In 1983, the District Attorney's Office reorganized 
its handling of mental health cases by creating a Mental Health 
Unit as an all encompassing section to handle cases such as 
those listed above. During the same year, the regular calendar 
of mental health cases was heard by Superior Court Judges at 
the Hall of Justice. Extraordinary medical treatment consent 
hearings were held at hospitals when patients were too disabled 
to appear in court. Certification Review hearings were also 
heard at each of eight local hospitals by a court 
commissioner. Jury trials were assigned to the master calendar 
of the Civil Division of the Superior Court. 




Conservatorship petitions are presented by the 
District Attorney based on the recommendation of the county 
designated LPS conservatorship investigator where there is 
evidence that the person is unable, as a result of mental 
disorder, to provide for personal needs of food, clothing or 
shelter and where there is an accompanying need of psychiatric 
treatment to alleviate the person's disability. 

Conservatorships are often opposed and the degree of 
litigation necessary in each case varies. However, mental 
patients have multiple opportunities for review. For example, 
when a person is a candidate for an LPS conservatorship, the 
person has a right to multiple evidenciary hearings and jury 
trial before a year-long conservatorship can be established. 
Following is a list of those statutorily mandated hearings: 

a) 72-hour evaluation-no review 

b) 14-day certification - two reviews 

1) Probable Cause Certification Review Hearing 
before a hearing officer or court commission 

2) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 

c) 30-day temporary conservatorship-one review. 

1) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

d) One year conservatorship. 




1) Conservatorship hearing, procedural. If the 
conservator is appointed, right to review by 
court or jury trial. 

2) If sustained, right to rehearing before 
a judge. 

3) If again sustained, then right to rehearing 
after six months. 

e) If the person has needs which are not covered by 
the powers of the conservator, such as surgery, 
then evidentiary hearings are also necessary to 
obtain a court order for the procedure. 

In evaluating the number and type of cases dealing 
with mental health issues, it has become clear that the field 
is becoming complex and specialized, the numbers are increasing 
and the community has become increasingly sensitive to the 
problems presented by the mentally ill. 

In 1983 there was a total of 2403 conservatorship 
hearings. Tnere were also 131 petitions for writs of Habeas 
Corpus. Eight writs were granted, 71 writs were denied by the 
court due to findings that the patients were being held 
properly for involuntary psychiatric treatment and 51 writs 
were withdrawn by defense counsel. 

In 1983 there was a significant reduction in the 
number of petitions for writs of Habeas Corpus - from 461 in 
1982 to 131 in 1983. Nonetheless, the overall number of 
conservatorship hearings increased. The decrease in writ 
petitions appears to be as a direct result of the Certification 
Review Hearing procedure which took effect January 1, 1983 when 
Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5256 came into effect. 


The certification review hearings take place at eight 
local hospitals before a court commissioner, within four days 
of the person having been certified for involuntary treatment. 
Presentation of evidence by the District Attorney at these 
hearings is discretionary. During 1983 approximately 20 
percent of an attorney's time was spent in participating in 
selected certification review hearings and in providing advice 
to hospital staff charged with the presentation of such cases. 

Jury trials are neard in the Civil Division of 
Superior Court and each takes an average of four days. In 1983 
there were 12 demands for jury trial. Final judicial o'rders 
are subject to appellate review. Toward the end of 1982, the 
Attorney General's Office decided they would no longer handle 
this type of non-criminal appeals. Consequently in 1983, the 
District Attorney's Office brought two writs before the First 
Appellate District, defended an appeal before the First 
Appellate District, and filed a petition for hearing before the 
California Supreme Court. 

Welfare and Institution Code Section 5300 et seq. 
provides for the commitment of persons who, as a result of 
mental disorder or defect, present a demonstrated danger of 
inflicting substantial physical harm upon others. As of 
January 1, 1983, the statute was amended to lengthen the term 
of commitment from 90 days to a maximum of 180 days. On the 



other hand, the legislature added section 5305 et seq. 
permitting outpatient status. In 1983 there were 26 petitions 
for postcertification treatment. Of these, 17 petitions were 
granted and the persons were committed for treatment; three 
petitions were withdrawn after LPS conservatorship was 
established; four petitions were withdrawn on the 
recommendation of psychiatrists; and in two cases the court 
found insufficient evidence and denied the petitions. In 
addition, three patients were approved for outpatient treatment 
under the supervision of the Department of Public Health. In 
two of the three cases, the District Attorney's Office ^obtained 
revocation of the outpatient status after the patients failed 
to comply with the prescribed outpatient treatment. 

Tne District Attorney's Office is charged with the 
filing of petitions for commitment and treatment of persons 
who, as a result of developmental disability, are a danger to 
themselves or to others. In 1983, eight such petitions were 

Tne following is a statistical chart indicating the 
number of psychiatric cases handled by the District Attorney's 
Office for the years 1980 to 1983: 


1980 1981 1982 1983 

Conservatorship Hearings 

Writs of Habeas Corpus 


Writs of Habeas Corpus 


Writs of Habeas Corpus 

Petitions for Postcertif ication 
of Dangerous Persons 

Developmentally Disabled 

Jury Trial Demands 




































The Narcotics and Vice Prosecution Section within the 
District Attorney's Office was founded to address narcotics and 
vice prosecution in the City and County of San Francisco. The 
Section is headed by Assistant District Attorney Cynthia Lee. 
During fiscal 1983-84, the legal staff numbered six assistant 
district attorneys who prosecuted cases brought to the District 
Attorney's Office by the San Francisco Police Department's 
Narcotics and Vice Detail. 

Recognizing the nation-wide proliferation of drugs, 
and realizing that San Francisco is no exception to the areas 
beset by the problem, in the early part of 1984, the District 
Attorney's Office urged a concentrated law enforcement effort 
to not only obtain evidence for the prosecution of additional 
cases involving sale of narcotics on the street, but also mid 
and high level drug trafficking. An editorial in the San 
Francisco Examiner of April 24th began: "The proposals by 
District Attorney Arlo Smith for a more effective assault on 
the narcotics trade in San Francisco make obvious sense." 

The District Attorney's Office policy on narcotics 
prosecution is that the Office prosecutes, and will continue to 
prosecute, all cases where there is sufficient evidence to 
proceed in court and prove the cases beyond a reasonable doubt. 


A sampling of cases prosecuted by the Narcotics and 
Vice Prosecution Section during fiscal 1983-84 is set forth 

In August 1983, San Francisco Police Department 
narcotics officers responded to a narcotics complaint and after 
interviewing the building manager, went to the defendant's 
apartment to investigate. The defendant allowed entry and the 
police officers observed a co-defendant place a large, clear 
plastic bag containing wnite powder into a flight bag. The 
Officers recognized the powder as cocaine and placed both 
people under arrest. A search of the defendant yielded two 
grams of cocaine and 50.61 grams of cocaine were found in the 
flight bag together with $4,198 in cash. After a jury trial, 
the defendant was convicted of possession for sale of cocaine 
and neroin and sentenced to state prison. 

In April of 1984, the defendant sold cocaine and 
neroin to an undercover officer and arranged for a second sale 
of cocaine and heroin to take place on the next day. Following 
the second sale, the defendant was arrested and search of his 
car and home yielded 28 grams of cocaine and in excess of three 
grams of heroin. The defendant pleaded guilty and was 
sentenced to state prison. Appeal was denied. 



Howell, a young and well-known race horse jockey, and 
nis brother caused their girlfriends to work as prostitutes in 
the Tenderloin District. Noticing the youthful appearance of 
Wesley Howell's 16-year-old girlfriend, San Francisco Police 
Department vice officers investigated and developed evidence 
leading to arrests on charges of pimping. The girl friend 
refused to prosecute and the case was dismissed by the court. 
Tne case was refiled later when the young woman's family 
brought her back to report escalating abuse by defendant Wesley 
Howe 11. 

Tne victim proceeded with the prosecution despite 
threats against ner life and despite attempts at bribery and 
abduction. Wesley Howell's brother was convicted of attempting 
to dissuade a witness and was sentenced to four years in state 
prison. Wesley Howell was sentenced to 11 years in state 

James and Artie Mitchell, owners of the O'Farrell 
Theater in San Francisco, were issued a Red Light Abatement 
preliminary injunction in January of 1981 barring prostitution 
and lewd conduct at their theater. 

In August of 1983, after writs, appeals and numerous 
constitutional pretrial motions, the Mitchell Brothers stood 
trial in Superior Court for wilful contempt of that order. 


After reviewing several hundred pages of briefs, the 
court sentenced the Mitchell Brothers to six months in the 
county jail and to a $124,000 fine. They appealed the decision 
and on June 7, 1984, the State Court of Appeals upheld their 
contempt of court convictions holding that the trial record 
contained abundant evidence that acts of prostitution and acts 
of lewdness occurred at the theater in violation of the City's 
red light abatement ordinance. The case is now pending before 
the California Supreme Court. 



The District Attorney assigns five attorneys to the 
Youth Guidance Center at 375 Woodside to prosecute crimes 
committed by juveniles. Each attorney, with the exception of 
the Supervising District Attorney Nancy Stretch, is assigned to 
a court presided over by either a judge or juvenile court 

In every instance where a minor is referred to the 
Probation Department for a criminal 'violation, felony or 
misdemeanor, a probation officer conducts an investigation to 
determine whether a petition (a cnarging instrument) should be 
requested of the District Attorney. When such a request is 
made, the District Attorney will then determine if criminal 
cnarges are appropriate, and-if so-then prepare the petition 
and prosecute the case. 

All felony arrests or citations are referred to the 
District Attorney's Office for possible prosecution. 
Misdemeanor arrests and citations are generally referred when 
the minor has had prior citations or is not doing well at home 
or school, and is in need of probation services (counseling 
etc.). After a minor has been declared a ward, a supplemental 
petition is filed when the juvenile's probation officer decides 
that a change in placement is necessary. This happens when the 
minor refuses to honor his probation conditions or is 


beyond the control of his caretaker. In every hearing minors 
are entitled to counsel, and interpreters if needed, and all 
petitions must be sustained by competent evidence which proves 
the truth of the matter beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Dispositions (sentences of the court) range from 
probation to a commitment to the California Youth Authority. 
Short periods of post-disposition "rehabilitative" detention at 
Youth Guidance Center may also be ordered. The variety of 
sentencing alternatives include placing the minor back in the 
home under a probation officer's supervision, placing tne minor 
with a relative or placing the minor in a live-in treatment 
facility such as Log Cabin Ranch School for boys or the Contra 
Costa Girls Center. Log Cabin has space for 70 boys, however, 
Contra Costa will only accept tnree girls from San Francisco at 
the Girls Center at any given time. Gaining additional space 
is impeded by financial problems. 

Disposition of the juvenile cases presents another 
problem for the juvenile criminal justice system and for the 
District Attorney's staff at the Youth Guidance Center. When 
the District Attorney thinKs that the dispositional 
recommendations by the Probation Department are inappropriate, 
and when the courts are asked to deviate from those 
recommendations in favor of a more severe or restrictive 
disposition, the disposition hearing then becomes an extended 
evidentiary hearing. Members of the District Attorney's staff 
often have to conduct additional 


investigation, prepare additional reports and examine witnesses 
at tnis hearing in order to contradict the recommended 
dispositions . 

In addition, the staff at the Youth Guidance Center 
presents cases on Friday afternoons regarding truancy reports. 
In 1981, the San Francisco Unified School District along with 
the police department implemented the Stay-in-School Program in 
order to halt the chronic truancy problem. Students on 
probation who were determined by police to be absent from 
school without good cause were cited to appear on a truancy 
calendar presided over by tne juvenile court judge. Reports 
are prepared by probation officers for each truant. This 
program has reduced the number of citations for truancy, and 
reports from police units assigned to school patrols reflect a 
decrease in tne number of students lingering in the 
neighborhoods. The success of this program was achieved by the 
ability to mete out swift accountability — including time in 
custody--to the offenders. 

Overall statistics for the Juvenile Court Section 
during the calendar year 1983 are listed: 



Petitions filed 
Dispositions : 

Youth Authority Commitments 

Log Cabin Ranch School 

Contra Costa Girl's Center 

Home Probation 

Cases Dismissed 

Remanded to Adult Court 

Transferred to otner 



*Includes admissions on day of trial. 















































The Integrated Police Prosecution Project was 
established in February of 1981. It was designed to improve 
the established system by allowing civilian witnesses in the 
four preliminary hearing courts to participate in the judicial 
process in a smooth, coordinated manner. Central to the 
project is the idea of issuing subpoenas by mail. This is done 
in order to reduce the burden on police who have to personally 
serve out subpoenas. 

Since its start, the IPP Project has greatly expended 
its services. Under the directorship of Ken Crandall , ,the 
project serves as a complete witness management unit for all 
municipal courts (felony preliminary courts and misdemeanor 
trial courts). With a staff of five, the project is 
responsible for tne issuance of subpoenas for both police and 
civilian witnesses. 

The number of subpoenas issued monthly has increased 
from an average of 800, while in the original preliminary 
hearing courts, to a current monthly average of 4,000. The 
increase in volume has been made possible by the purchase and 
use of word processing equipment. Furthermore, on January 1, 
1984 when the Senate Bill 122 was signed into law, a mailed 
subpoena was given substantially the same force, in effect, as 
a personally served subpoena. This legislation provided that 
service of the mailed subpoena is legally effective upon 


confirmation from the witness (identifying him/herself by 
reference to date of birth and driver's license number) that 
the subpoena nas been received. 

In addition to assisting attorneys with witness 
management tasks, providing a system which is responsive to 
victims and witnesses and reducing the burden of subpoena 
service placed on the police department, the IPP Project 
gathers statistics relevant to subpoena service and witness 
appearance rates. 

The project, also locates hard to find witnesses; 
identifies and resolves problems which may prevent witnesses 
from appearing in court; advises witnesses of schedule charges; 
provides employer intervention services for civilian witnesses 
and alerts prosecuting attorneys to witness problems. 

Tne project provides specialized services for 
witnesses including transportation arrangement when necessary, 
ordering court interpreters for limited and non-English 
speaking witnesses and providing elderly, handicapped or 
frightened witnesses with reception, orientation and court room 
escort. The project also provides public information services 
by explaining criminal justice proceedings (verbally and by way 
of mailed brochure) to victims and witnesses by providing 
witnesses with information concerning appropriate courses of 
action in the event of intimidation. To insure that witnesses 
make necessary contact while confirming subpoena receipt, the 


IPP Project provides constantly staffed phone lines each day 
from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. This is necessary as witnesses 
frequently have difficulty contacting attorneys who must spend 
many hours in court each day with busy trial calendars 



By its very nature, arson is a crime in which 
eyewitnesses are rare and to an unusual degree the prosecution 
must rely on small bits and pieces of circumstantial evidence. 

To combat this deadly crime in San Francisco, a 
special Arson Task Force was established. The Task Force 
includes members from the Bureau of Fire Investigation of the 
San Francisco Fire Department, two inspectors from the San 
Francisco Police Department and an experienced Assistant 
District Attorney, Paul Cummins. 

Successfully prosecuting arson cases is extremely 
difficult. Data compiled by the United States Fire 
Administration shows that generally less than ten per cent of 
those who commit arson in California are identified. The 
national average of convictions in relation to known arson 
fires is a dismally low tnree per cent. 

However, in San Francisco the average is 12 per cent. 
In San Francisco, the overall conviction rate of arson fires 
charged is maintained at approximately 92 per cent of the 
average. "These figures exceed the estimated national average 
and, more importantly, reflect the success of the team concept 
of the Arson Task Force," stated Emmet D. Condon, Chief of the 
San Francisco Fire Department. 

Each of the investigators and inspectors assigned to 
the Arson Task Force has been specifically trained in the cause 


and origin of fires. The Assistant District Attorney assigned 
to the special unit brings extensive felony jury trial 
experience to the Arson Task Force and is in daily contact with 
other members. 

The stated goal of the Arson Task Force is the 
successful prosecution of arsonists. The merging of the three 
City departments insures a high quality of work from each 
component by virtue of the exchange of information and 
expertise. Because one of the biggest problems in an arson 
case is proving that the fire was of a criminal not accidental 
origin, the Assistant District Attorney assigned to the task 
force acts as an ongoing legal advisor to the other members 
whose skills are improved monthly by speakers from the San 
Francisco Fire Department who lecture on a wide range of 
fire-related topics. 

The value of tnis program is demonstrated by a 
conviction rate four times greater than the national average. 
The Task Force nas also received praise from the San Francisco 
Civil Grand Jury for its outstanding work. 

The residents of San Francisco have a history of being 
very fire conscious. Fire completely razed the City several 
times during its early years and the bulk of the damage done on 
April 18, 1906, was not caused by the earthquake but by the 
resultant fire. 

During the early part of 1984, San Francisco was 


haunted by a series of arson fires in which the perpetrator 
struck at night, torching rubbish in or near basements of 
buildings and residences. The Arson Task Force was 
supplemented by specially assigned police officers to do 
surveillance. A $10,000 reward was offered by the Mayor's 

In April of 1984, a fire on Waller Street caused 
$25,000 worth of property damage. A defendant with a history 
of prior arson arrests was arrested within a few days and on 
July 2, 1984, was convicted of arson. The pattern of fires 
stopped immediately. 




State law provides for two Grand Juries in San 
Francisco. One Grand Jury reviews the operations of municipal 
government in the City and the other, called the Indictment 
Grand Jury, investigates public offenses and hears evidence 
presented by the District Attorney which may result in an 
indictment. An indictment is a written accusation filed by the 
Grand Jury in Superior Court charging a person with a public 
offense. Tnis Indictment Grand Jury is an arm of the Superior 
Court. Nineteen citizens of San Francisco are selected by the 
Court to be empaneled for the Indictment Grand Jury. 

In 1978 when the Supreme Court of California decided 
the case of People v. Hawkins , tne nature of the cases 
presented to the Indictment Grand Jury changed dramatically. 
The Hawkins decision ruled that an indicted defendant has the 
right to a post-indictment preliminary hearing in felony cases, 
which means that the same evidence which had been presented to 
the Grand Jury and which resulted in an indictment, is now 
required to be again presented to a magistrate to determine 
whether the defendant should be certified to the Superior Court 
for trial. This duplication of hearings caused many cases 
previously prosecuted because of Grand Jury indictment to be 
presented by way of complaint. Thus, the emphasis in Grand 
Jury practice has shifted from a crime charging orientation to 
an investigative orientation. 


In calendar year 1983, the Grand Jury convened 22 
times and at eacn session the District Attorney or an Assistant 
District Attorney acted as legal advisor to that body. 

The majority of tne cases presented to the Indictment 
Grand Jury consisted of investigations initiated by the Special 
Prosecutions section of the District Attorney's Office. 

Although occasionally other cases (see summary of 
Cocaine Supplier Case listed below) are presented to the Grand 
Jury, the Grand Jury is currently almost entirely used to 
investigate business crime, major conspiracies, official 
corruption and consumer fraud. 

An advantage of taking an investigation before the 
Grand Jury is that, by law, the proceedings remain secret 
unless an indictment is returned. Also, witnesses testify 
under oath during Grand Jury proceedings and tne Grand Jury has 
the subpoena powers to bring witnesses and records before the 
Grand Jury. 





















MEETINGS 38 44 42 64 22 

Summaries of some of the Grand Jury cases in the past 
year are as follows: 

Kirby Dong, a box office manager of the San Francisco 
Symphony, was charged with skimming money off box office 
receipts and generating a secret "cash surplus" which was used 
to pay employees unauthorized cash bonuses. Estimated loss was 

He was indicted by the Grand Jury on April 27, 1983, 
for two counts of grand theft and allegation as to one count of 
excessive taking (12022.6 (a) P.C.) Dong subsequently plead 
guilty to one count of grand tneft, felony. 



In September 1983, the Grand Jury returned an 
indictment against the Sergeant who was head of the Sheriff's 
Work Alternative Program (SWAP). The SWAP program was devised 
as a community work alternative to county jail for non-violent 
and misdemeanor offenders. 

Evidence taken before the Grand Jury revealed that the 
sergeant was using his position of authority as head of the 
swap program to sexually harass female prisoners and was 
forcing prisoners to buy items such as soft drinks from him 
during the days prisoners worked. The Sergeant also used the 
prisoner work crews to strip and carry marble away from the 
restrooms of a school which they were cleaning up. The marble 
was then stored at the SWAP building and at the Sergeant's own 

The Sergeant was indicted on misdemeanor charges of 
petty theft of the marble, oppression toward prisoners and 
bartering with prisoners. He was removed from SWAP and was 
placed in a diversion program by the court. 

In February 1983, two San Francisco police officers 
were indicted for misdemeanor charges stemming from an arrest 
of two men in the Castro District in July of 1982. 

Witnesses before the Grand Jury testified that the two 
officers, while on duty, beat two victims. Both officers, on 


tnat same day, also falsely imprisoned two other men. A 
seventh charge against one of the officer, alleged that -while 
on duty- he assaulted yet another man. 

Both officers ultimately were placed in a diversion 
program by the court. 



The Administrative Support Staff, under the direction 
of Administrator Philip Siggins, and Administrative Assistant 
Mary King-Gorwky, assists the legal and executive staffs in 
carrying out the duties of the District Attorney's Office. 
Support services include secretarial, clerical, paralegal and 
technical services. 

In addition, accounting, payroll personnel and 
purchasing functions also fall within the scope of the Support 
Staff definition. 

During fiscal 1983-84, while working within the MBO 
program the Support Staff focus was placed upon upgrading 
antiquated office equipment. Detailed equipment inventories 
were taken in order to address the goal of increasing office 
efficiencies. And, within budget allocations, modern equipment 
was purchased in order to make immediate improvements in work 

Also, within the 1983-84 fiscal year, an 
organizational analysis was undertaken within this section and 
a written list of validated employee concerns was developed 
through interviewing, observing and systematic and concentrated 
period of problem solving ensued in order to reach higher 
levels of performance. Securing additional office equipment 
and office space during the fiscal year alleviated many 
problems and improved office performance. 


During Che 1983-84 fiscal year, the Administrative 
Support Section also 1. Prepared the annual budget 2. Paid 
the expenses of the Criminal Division 3. Supplied Discovery to 
defense counsel 4. Monitored and reported on grant funded 
programs within the District Attorney's Office and provided the 
office with all technical services such as printing and 



The Welfare Fraud Investigation Unit of the District 
Attorney's Office has the responsibility for the prevention, 
detection, investigation and prosecution of welfare fraud in 
the City and County of San Francisco. 

Two of the many investigations and prosecutions 
conducted by tne Welfare Fraud Prosecution Unit within the last 
year are: 

In February of 1984, the District Attorney's Office 
--with tne complete cooperation of tne Department of Social 
Services --arrested two welfare workers charging them with 
felony violations of appropriating public welfare money. Both 
defendants plead guilty in April of 1984. 

In October of 1984, the District Attorney's Welfare 
Fraud Unit charged two inmates and one former inmate at the San 
Francisco County Jail in San Bruno witn welfare fraud. It was 
alleged that the men had illegally received and cashed General 
Assistance payments during their incarcerations. The case is 
pending and the District Attorney's Office is seeking 
restitution to the City and County of San Francisco for the 
amounts of money involved. In addition, the District 
Attorney's Office made recommendations to the City's Department 
of Social Services and to the Sheriff's Department to close up 
the gaps in their procedures which allowed the abuse to occur 
and those recommendations were adopted by the agencies. 


The Unit, directed by Thomas Kasovich, Chief Welfare 
Fraud Investigator, was establisned in 1981 and since then has 
uncovered more than $3 million in fraudulent welfare benefits. 
The benefit overpayments are recovered through civil action. 
The value to our community of the investigation and prosecution 
of welfare fraud cases during the fiscal years listed is 
illustrated in the following table: 


Fraud Referrals 

Investigations completed 

Investigations to D.A. for 

Investigations Closed 

Investigations resulting in 
Discontinuance or denial of aid 

Overpayments uncovered by 

Investigations 1,015,520 1,405,570 1,597,688 

Yearly savings from 

Discontinuance or denial 401,000 670,500 742,000 

Investigations pending 989 1,845 2,538 






















Within the last year the District Attorney's Consumer and 
Environmental Protection Section attained a series of criminal 
convictions and filed civil charges in a number of hazardous waste 
and consumer related crimes. 

In December 1983, the District Attorney's Office obtained 
the first jury conviction in California legal history involving the 
illegal storage of hazardous waste. The defendant, accused of 
violating tne Hazardous Waste Control Act, was found guilty of 
storing hazardous waste at Pier 70 in the Port of San Francisco and 
was sentenced to a two to nine month jail term and ordered to pay a 
fine of almost a half million dollars. In addition, the defendant 
was ordered to pay restitution to the Port of San Francisco which 
had spent more than $250,000 for clean-up and decontamination of 
Pier 70. 

In addition to filing charges against hazardous waste 
offenders, tne Consumer and Environmental Protection team has become 
the state's leading proactivist local agency enforcing hazardous 
waste laws. Together with WeTIP (a nationwide anonymous witness 
program) , the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Bay Area radio and 
TV stations, the Environmental Team embarked upon a pilot program to 
more actively involve the public in combatting the various 
environmental problems of toxic waste storage and disposal. The San 
Francisco District Attorney's Office has led in the state-wide 
effort to aggressively enforce PCB regulation and has been a 
resource to other county prosecutors in the enforcement effort. 


The District Attorney's Consumer Fraud and Environmental 
Protection Section under the direction of Assistant District 
Attorney Robert H. Perez serves the public primarily through 
litigation and complaint mediation. 

In October of 1983, Consumer Protection attorneys settled 
the first law suit involving the failure of a San Francisco 
apartment house owner to provide heat to tenants. The landlord was 
fined $12,750 in the case which demonstrated the District Attorney's 
determination to motivate San Francisco landlords to comply with the 
City's heating ordinance. Heating Code violations have been 
prosecuted under both civil and criminal laws with one -case 
resulting in a $100,000 judgment against a defendant landlord. 

Within the past year the first criminal charge was filed 
against developers for violation of the condominium conversion laws 
of the San Francisco's Subdivision Code. The case was followed by a 
series of prosecutions under the Subdivision Code including the 
first criminal and civil action filed against a landlord for 
violating tne rental provisions of the condominium conversion law, 
which prohibits rent increases while a conversion application is 
pending. Vigorous enforcement of the condominium laws was and still 
remains necessary to protect the interests of San Francisco 
residents while preserving low and moderate housing stock. 

In an effort to protect San Francisco residents and 
visitors to San Francisco, a San Francisco towing company was 
charged with violating state and local laws regulating the towing of 


automobiles. Tne staff attorneys charged the towing company with 
violation of a City ordinance drafted and proposed by the District 
Attorney in 1982, (and effective in 1983) which prohibited towing 
companies from charging more than $50 per tow to customers whose 
cars were removed from private property. In November of 1984, the 
District Attorney's office obtained an injunction against certain of 
the towing company's practices. 

The last quarter of 1984 saw the felony conviction of a San 
Francisco insurance agent for embezzling the premiums paid by 36 
clients who not only lost money but failed to obtain necessary auto 
insurance coverage. Tne defendant was ordered to pay restitution to 
the victims in the amount of $22,000. 

To deter home improvement scams against San Francisco's 
senior citizens the Consumer Protection staff focused on the 
prosecution of contractors who systematically prey on nelpless 
elderly victims. Felony charges resulting in a state prison 
sentence were filed against one contractor who had fled to the East 
Coast, requiring his extradition and return to California. 

Following the filing of a civil action, promoters of an 
alleged Olympic Committee sponsored child abuse program terminated 
their operation and fled the area. Similarly, two promoters of a 
senior citizen recreational program were made to account for 
donations and prohibited from further unauthorized telephone 
solicitation after appearing before the criminal court. 

In early 1984 the District Attorney invited business 
leaders and representatives of city agencies to participate in 


the formation of the Consumer Protection Task Force to address 
potential consumer and tourist scams which could arise during the 
Democratic Convention and the Olympic Games. 

Consistent with the District Attorney's desire to educate 
consumers, the Mediation Unit spoke to hundreds of citizens in 
presentations to community associations, senior citizens 
organizations and school children during the year. Information 
booths were staffed at various street fairs and the San Francisco 
County Fair to distribute brochures and advice to the visiting 
public. An animated public service message developed for television 
on consumer shopping tips was shown on all major San Francisco 
television stations. Mediation staff also appeared on numerous 
television and radio programs to advise on consumer remedies and 
current scams. The District Attorney's Mediation Staff mediated 
over 3,000 complaints in 1984 resulting in the recovery of over 
$130,000 to consumers. 

Consumer and Environmental Section staff nave been active 
in the development of consumer and public safety legislation on 
state and local levels. Staff attorneys participate on City and 
Regional Task Forces and committees relating to hazardous waste and 
condominium conversions. 



The Family Support Bureau is responsible for enforcing the 
obligation of parents to support their children and for determining 
paternity in cases where children are born out of wedlock. The 
Unit, established in 1976, is under the direction of Walter 
Fuchigami . 

According to CBS Television research there were 6.5 million 
single parent households in the United States in 1982. That figure 
translates into more than one quarter of all families with children 
nationwide. Across the country, unpaid child support payments 
amount to about four billion dollars. The District Attorney's 
Family Support Bureau is tne Unit wnicn combats the problem of 
delinquent child support payments in San Francisco. 

Tne Bureau collected a record 8.8 million dollars in child 
support payments in fiscal year 1983-84 and conducted more tnan 
17,000 personal interviews in offices located at 291 Tenth St. 

The Unit obtains orders for child support, in many cases 
works to establish paternity, and works to secure and collect the 
child support payments. In 1983, the Bureau was commended by the 
State Department of Social Services for achieving outstanding 
success in collecting delinquent child support payments through the 
tax intercept program. The Bureau handles both welfare and 
non-welfare related cases. By collecting money for families not on 
welfare, the Bureau saves taxpayer money by keeping those families 
off welfare. 


During fiscal year 1983-84, tne Family Support Bureau was 
self supporting in receipt of federal and state revenues which 
exceeded budget expenditures generating a $21,300 surplus to the 
General Fund of the City and County of San Francisco. The Family 
Support Bureau recouped welfare case collections of $4,828,547, of 
which $255,027 was retained by the City and County. This fund is 
not considered income to the Family Support Bureau but is money 
which has been recovered as a direct result of its efforts. 

In addition, the Bureau recovered support for parents not 
on welfare in the amount of $3,476,501. These particular recoveries 
allowed custodial parents with marginal incomes to remain off the 
welfare rolls and to provide adequate support for their children. 
These services are provided by the Family Support Bureau without 
charge to residents of San Francisco. 

Tne following chart outlines child support statistics for 

fiscal years 1980-81 through 1983-84: 


1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 

WELFARE $2,807,950 3,355,842 4,548,644 4,828,547 

NON-WELFARE 2,305,956 2,828,729 2,968,875 3,476,501 


FEES, INTEREST, ETC.) 133.073 165.119 654,672 553,9 85 

$5,246,979 6,349 690 8,172 191 8,859 033 



In April 1984, Governor George Deukmejian cited the 
District Attorney's Family Violence Project for its "significant 
contributions in providing outstanding service to crime victims" 
while presenting the Governor's Victims Service Award to the Project, 

The Project was one of five programs selected from a 
statewide field of candidates that was honored in ceremonies held in 
Long Beach in April of 1984. 

Established in 1980, the project is headed by Esta Soler. 
It provides crisis intervention, support counseling, case 
investigation, criminal prosecution and follow up. It iias also 
established a pilot counseling program which provides rehabilitative 
help for offenders. It has become a model program for other 
District Attorneys Offices statewide. 

Tne Project also gives training to the San Francisco Police 
Department and in 1984 neared completion of the first comprehensive 
family violence police training manual which will be the first such 
training aid in the State. 

In September of 1984, the U.S. Attorney General's Task 
Force on Family Violence pointed out that nearly one fifth of all 
murders in the nation involve family relationships and that abuse of 
the elderly is on the rise. The Family Violence Project has begun a 
focus program on elderly abuse which has become one of the most 
pervasive problems of domestic violence within the past year. 


Family violence, if left unchecked, does escalate and leads 
to predictable but unnecessary tragedies. The criminal justice 
system is the primary institution to which families with violence 
problems may turn for help. Through its power to enforce laws and 
punish offenders, it is the leading institution to protect victims 
of family violence. The project also provides public education 
programs on family violence and a myriad of additional services 
which it performs for the victims of family violence. 

Tne Family Violence Project, in addition to financial 
support from the City and County of San Francisco, receives private 
foundation support. Tne Levi Strauss Foundation, the San Francisco 
Foundation, and the Koret Foundation being among the largest private 
funders . 

In October 1984, the project moved a section of its offices 
to San Francisco General Hospital to be of service to San 
Franciscans witn family violence problems. The Family Violence 
Project also maintains offices at the Hall of Justice. 



The Gang Violence Suppression Program funded by the Office 
of Criminal Justice Planning in Sacramento, focuses special 
attention on crimes committed by members of juvenile gangs. 

Studies prove that gang activity crime repeats itself 
unless stopped through vigorous prosecution. The District 
Attorney's Gang Violence Suppression Program, under the direction of 
Assistant District Attorney Christopher Nedeau has prosecuted an 
average of tnree co-minors per case in sixteen juvenile cases during 
a six-month grant period from April 1984 to September 30, 1984. All 
of the cases involved groups or gangs of juveniles perpetrating 
crimes . 

A total of 37 juveniles were charged during tnat same six 
month grant period witn 89 charges filed against them. 

The Gang Violence Suppression prosecutor receives most of 
his/ner cases as referrals from arrests made by the San Francisco 
Police Department's Gang Task Force. That highly specialized unit 
was formed following the "Golden Dragon Massacre" in 1977 to combat 
gang violence. The District Attorney's Unit works closely with the 
Task Force in developing cases which are often complex and time 
consuming due to victim/witness fears and to language barriers. 

The District Attorney's Office has a Victim/Witness Program 
with a bi -lingual coordinator working at Youth Guidance Center to 
assist in accomplishing tne goal of suppressing gang violence 
through specialized prosecution. 



Felonies are prosecuted by assigned divisions in the 
Superior Court Section whose chief is Linda Klee. Most serious 
felonies are prosecuted by the Homicide, Sexual Assault, Domestic 
Violence, Career Criminal, and Special Prosecution. A system of 
vertical prosecution (one attorney handling the case from inception 
to disposition) is utilized where possible. The Narcotics/Vice 
Section files its own cases, prosecutes the most serious of these at 
the preliminary nearing and handles litigation of all Narcotics/Vice 
crimes in the Superior Court. The Welfare Fraud unit files its own 
cases and follows all felonies vertically through the system. 

Felony cases which are not assigned to specific vertical 
prosecution units are assigned to tne General Litigation Sections I 
and II. 

The Felony Intake Section was established in 1981. Its 
size was increased from four to seven team members in 1984. At that 
time, three members were added as General Litigation I attorneys to 
handle special cases vertically. Tne Section is headed by Assistant 
District Attorney Paul Cummins. All of the attorneys on this team 
have extensive felony trial experience. Four members of the team 
review felony arrests and warrant requests in cases which are not 
assigned to special vertical prosecution teams. They provide a 
centralized location for police inspectors to present their cases 
for review. They screen cases and make sure each arrest is 


thoroughly evaluated prior to filing and that the appropriate 
charges are filed with the court. This Unit--through its screening 
procedure—decides what cases should be introduced into the court 
system and frees General Litigation II attorneys to exclusively 
concentrate on motions and trial preparation in Superior Court. 
They further screen out specific cases in special need of early 
attention for vertical handling by other members of the General 
Litigation I attorneys. This insures that complex and serious cases 
can be identified early for special assignment. 

Felony cases originally filed by the Intake Section, which 
are not handled vertically, are assigned to General Litigation II 
however, first they must go through a preliminary hearing. Tnese 
cases are presented to the court by tne Preliminary Hearing Section 
which is headed by Assistant District Attorney Candace Heisler. 
Twelve attorneys and four investigators are assigned to this 
section. Tne attorneys assigned to this section handle all 
pre-hearing motions and prepare and present the felony preliminary 
hearings. In excess of two-tnirds of the new felony cases filed each 
month are handled by the Preliminary Hearing Section. A master 
Calendar Deputy handles the arraignment after a case is held to 
answer to the Superior Court. The Master Calendar (Department 22) 
Section of the Superior Court's Division is headed by Assistant 
District Attorney Mary Siegfried. 

After the preliminary hearing has been completed in 
Municipal Court, and the case has been arraigned in Superior Court, 


the cases involved are eitner followed through by the original 
vertical team member or the cases are assigned to attorney in the 
General Litigation II Section. Ten trial attorneys serve in the 
General Litigation II trials section under the direction of 
Assistant District Attorney Lenard Louie. The general litigation II 
attorney is responsible for all other aspects of the trial of the 
case. General Litigation cases comprise a full spectrum of felony 
crimes, including attempted murder, robbery, aggravated assault, 
burglary, kidnapping, auto theft, embezzlement, fraud and forgery. 
This prosecution section is considered to be the backbone of the 
felony trial staff. 

Tne following pages illustrate the Superior Court felony 
statistics for the fiscal year 1983-84: 



















Before Trial: 
Dismissals 388 
Cases Transferred: 48 








Guilty Pleas: 


Guilty Pleas: 















By Jury: 







A. Found Guilty 158 






B. Found Not 

Other Data: 








Juries Sworn 








995 P.C.Heari 

ngs 348 







1538.5 P.C. 



















Arlo Smith was elected District Attorney of the City and 
County of San Francisco in November, 1979 and was re-elected in 
November of 1983. 

A graduate of the University of California at Berkeley, he 
received his law degree from Boalt Hall in 1952. He was admitted to 
the California Bar in January of 1953 and was appointed Deputy 
Attorney General in the California Department of Justice that same 

He has prosecuted criminal cases at every level of the 
State and Federal Courts including tne California Supreme Court and 
tne United States Supreme Court. 

Appointed Chief Assistant Attorney General by Stanley Mosk 
and re-appointed by Tnomas C. Lyncn, Mr. Smith directed that 
Office's Criminal Division and during that time he created 
California's first Consumer Fraud Unit and first Organized Crime 

District Attorney Smith served as chairman of the San 
Francisco Bar Association Committee on Penal Reform and the 
California State Bar Committee on Appellate Courts. He also served 
on the Advisory Board to the Joint Legislative Committee for 
Revision of the Penal Code; the Chief Justice's Committee on 
Appelate Court Practices; the National Conference on Bail and 
Criminal Justice and the White House Conference on Narcotics. 

Robert M. Podesta is Chief Assistant District Attorney of 
the San Francisco District Attorney's Office. A graduate of the 


University of San Francisco School of law, Mr. Podesta has been a 
member of the San Francisco District Attorney's Office since 1964. 
His felony trial experience includes numerous homicide and other 
serious and complex cases. His administrative positions include 
assistant in charge of the Homicide Team, a Felony Trial Team, tne 
Special Prosecutions Unit and Chief of the Criminal Division. He 
has prosecuted many complex serious cases, including the Zebra case. 

A director of the California District Attorneys 
Association, Mr. Podesta is also a member of the Executive Committee 
of tne Criminal Law Section of the State Bar and is on the faculty 
of San Francisco Law School where ne teacnes criminal law and 

Jerome T. Benson is Chief of the Criminal Division of tne 
San Francisco District Attorney's Office. A graduate of Stanford 
Law School, Mr. Benson joined the District Attorney's Office in 1967 
and served as felony trial lawyer. He was supervisor of tne 
preliminary hearing section and Assistant in Cnarge of tne Superior 
Court Trial Section. 

Mr. Benson is former Chairman of the State Bar Subcommittee 
on Jury Instructions. 



15 15 5